linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/36] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment

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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:28:35 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, keescook@...omium.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/36] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:41:31AM +0100, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> 
> The protection of a hrtimer which runs its callback against migration to a
> different CPU has nothing to do with hard interrupt context.
> 
> The protection against migration of a hrtimer running the expiry callback
> is the pointer in the cpu_base which holds a pointer to the currently
> running timer. This pointer is evaluated in the code which potentially
> switches the timer base and makes sure it's kept on the CPU on which the
> callback is running.
> 
> Reported-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>

Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>