linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] time: Make sure jiffies_to_msecs() preserves non-zero time periods

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

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3FvHSVZhraEVUBkgz8FJCWn6+zwPD__G5tQ8naPrc6wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:18:33 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] time: Make sure jiffies_to_msecs() preserves
 non-zero time periods

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> For the common cases where 1000 is a multiple of HZ, or HZ is a multiple
> of 1000, jiffies_to_msecs() never returns zero when passed a non-zero
> time period.
>
> However, if HZ > 1000 and not an integer multiple of 1000 (e.g. 2001),
> jiffies_to_msecs() may return zero for small non-zero time periods.
> This may break code that relies on receiving back a non-zero value, e.g.
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c:tpm2_do_selftest().

For reference, there are exactly three platforms that allow HZ to be larger
than 1000, and they specifically use HZ=1024: alpha, itanium and
mips/decstation.

> With the fix above, this becomes a false positive.
> Nevertheless, it may be a good idea to preinitialize rc anyway, but I
> have no idea what's the correct value (else I would have sent a patch
> to do so ;-).

I think changing the while() loop into do{}while() would be appropriate here.

      Arnd