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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5f60bff9-0fe1-7f1f-2dcc-2a7363801897@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:35:51 +0100
From:   Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
To:     Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.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

Hi Andrei,

On 4/15/20 5:14 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> 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
>

That's good, I will try it by the end of this week or beginning of next and let
you know the results.

>>
>> Are you planning as well to rebase this set?>
> What is the right tree to rebase on?
> 

I guess master, I was asking because it would make easier my testing :)

> Thanks,
> Andrei
> 

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo