linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: add the time namespace support

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]

Message-ID: <CANaxB-w+_4BUOYb-5+w1xBPoZGOzBh-LYOFCY-WSysgbAAcn_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:43 -0700
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
To:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: add the time namespace support

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:02 AM Vincenzo Frascino
<vincenzo.frascino@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
> On 4/11/20 8:33 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino
> > <vincenzo.frascino@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the
> >> patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on
> >> arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected?
> >
> > static int alarm_clock_get_timespec(clockid_t which_clock, struct
> > timespec64 *tp)
> > {
> >         struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[clock2alarm(which_clock)];
> >
> >         if (!alarmtimer_get_rtcdev())
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> > It is probably that you get EINVAL from here ^^^. I will send a
> > separate patch to handle this case in tests properly.
> >
>
> This makes sense :) Please let me know when you post the fix so I can test it again.

I have sent this fix: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/15/72

>
> Are you planning as well to rebase this set?

What is the right tree to rebase on?

Thanks,
Andrei