linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] timer: Prevent base->clk from moving backward

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: <20200702155740.GJ9670@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:57:40 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] timer: Prevent base->clk from moving backward

On 02/07/20 16:32, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:59:59AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 02/07/20 01:20, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:35:04PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > Guess you might be faster to understand what I'm missing. :-)
> > > 
> > > So, did you port only this patch or the whole set in order to
> > > trigger this?
> > > 
> > > If it was the whole set, can you try this patch alone?
> > 
> > Whole set. And I can't reproduce if I try with this patch alone.
> > 
> 
> Missing initialization. This should go better after this:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 25a55c043297..f36b53219768 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1969,6 +1969,7 @@ static void __init init_timer_cpu(int cpu)
>  		base->cpu = cpu;
>  		raw_spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
>  		base->clk = jiffies;
> +		base->next_expiry = base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
>  		timer_base_init_expiry_lock(base);
>  	}
>  }
> 

Yep. Looks like warning is gone.