linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] nohz: Deal with clock reprogram skipping issues v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170530125118.GA28785@lerouge>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 14:51:22 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        James Hartsock <hartsjc@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Tim Wright <tim@...bash.co.uk>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] nohz: Deal with clock reprogram skipping issues v3

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 07:47:09AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Well, this does not answer my question: between latest tip:timers/nohz and the 
> > > patches you posted there's a delta, so it's not just a pure rebase.
> > 
> > Yeah but like I said, you can forget the series I posted because the diff is
> > mostly cosmetic and things are actually ok as they are in tip:timers/nohz
> > 
> > The only thing that bothers me is the fact that the HEAD of this branch doesn't have
> > a changelog or even just a comment.
> 
> We can still amend that - is this changelog what you had in mind:
> 
>   nohz: Reset next_tick cache even when the timer has no regs
> 
>   Handle tick interrupts whose regs are NULL, out of general paranoia. It happens 
>   when hrtimer_interrupt() is called from non-interrupt contexts, such as hotplug
>   CPU down events.
> 
> ?

Yep that one is fine. Thanks!