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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875zheclzm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:31:57 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, arnd@...db.de,
        vincenzo.frascino@....com, luto@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 06/12] lib: vdso: __iter_div_u64_rem() is suboptimal for 32 bit time

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:

> Using __iter_div_ulong_rem() is suboptimal on 32 bits.
> Nanoseconds are only 32 bits, and VDSO data is updated every 10ms
> so nsec will never overflow 32 bits.

That's theory and perhaps true for bare metal, but there is no guarantee
on VIRT that the CPU which has the timekeeping duty assigned is not
scheduled out for longer than 4 seconds.

Thanks,

        tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ