linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 06/12] lib: vdso: __iter_div_u64

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]

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