[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a27OV864GfvLK_wjO7dK__r59dZ_dNQACp4G00gJrAwMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:51:15 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/23] y2038: itimer: change implementation to timespec64
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:28 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > @@ -321,12 +321,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(itimer_state,
> > __entry->which = which;
> > __entry->expires = expires;
> > __entry->value_sec = value->it_value.tv_sec;
> > - __entry->value_usec = value->it_value.tv_usec;
> > + __entry->value_usec = value->it_value.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > __entry->interval_sec = value->it_interval.tv_sec;
> > - __entry->interval_usec = value->it_interval.tv_usec;
> > + __entry->interval_usec = value->it_interval.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC;
>
> Hmm, having a division in a tracepoint is clearly suboptimal.
Ok, moving it to the TP_printk() as Steven suggested.
> > - TP_printk("which=%d expires=%llu it_value=%ld.%ld it_interval=%ld.%ld",
> > + TP_printk("which=%d expires=%llu it_value=%ld.%06ld it_interval=%ld.%06ld",
>
> We print only 6 digits after the . so that would be even correct w/o a
> division. But it probably does not matter much.
This is just a cosmetic fix, it can be a separate patch if you care. The idea
is to print the numbers as normal decimal representation, e.g. 0.001000
for a millisecond instead of the nonstandard 0.1000.
> > @@ -197,19 +207,13 @@ static void set_cpu_itimer(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int clock_id,
> > #define timeval_valid(t) \
> > (((t)->tv_sec >= 0) && (((unsigned long) (t)->tv_usec) < USEC_PER_SEC))
>
> Hrm, why do we have yet another incarnation of timeval_valid()?
No idea, you have to ask the author of commit 7d99b7d634d8 ("[PATCH]
Validate and
sanitze itimer timeval from userspace") ;-)
> Can we please have only one (the inline version)?
I'm removing the inline version in a later patch along with most of the rest of
include/linux/time32.h.
Having the macro version is convenient for this patch, since I'm using it
on two different structures (itimerval/__kernel_old_timeval and
old_itimerval32/old_timeval32), neither of which is the type used in the
inline function.
I could use two local inline functions instead of the macro, or just open
code both call sites if you prefer that.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists