linux-kernel - Re: timer_settime() and ECANCELED

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, 02 Apr 2020 10:49:18 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arul.jeniston@...il.com,
        "devi R.K" <devi.feb27@...il.com>,
        Marc Lehmann <debian-reportbug@...n9.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: timer_settime() and ECANCELED

Michael,

"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> writes:
> On 4/1/20 7:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> (b): Arming the timer in that case is indeed very questionable, but it
>>      could be argued that because the clock was set event happened with
>>      the old expiry value that the new expiry value is not affected.
>>      
>>      I'd be happy to change that and not arm the timer in the case of a
>>      pending cancel, but I fear that some user space already depends on
>>      that behaviour.
>
> Yes, that's the risk, of course. So, shall we just document all 
> this in the manual page?

I think so.

Thanks,

        tglx