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  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:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:23:27 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <>,
        David Laight <>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>, Shuo Chen <>,
        linux-man <>,
        Willem de Bruijn <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] epoll: add nsec timeout support with epoll_pwait2

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 5:01 PM Willem de Bruijn
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:13 AM Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:13 PM Willem de Bruijn
> > <> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion.
> I do have an initial patchset. As expected, it does involve quite a
> bit of code churn to pass slack through the callers. I'll take a look
> at your suggestion to simplify it.
> As is, the patchset is not ready to send to the list for possible
> merge. In the meantime, I did push the patchset to github at
> . I can send
> a version marked RFC to the list if that's easier.

Looks all good to me, just two small things I noticed that you can
address before sending the new series:

* The div_u64_rem() in ep_timeout_to_timespec() looks wrong, as
  you are actually dividing a 'long' that does not need it.

* In "epoll: wire up syscall epoll_pwait2", the alpha syscall has the
wrong number, it
   should be 110 higher than the others, not 109.

> Btw, the other change, to convert epoll implementation to timespec64
> before adding the syscall, equally adds some code churn compared to
> patch v3. But perhaps the end state is cleaner and more consistent.

Right, that's what I meant. If it causes too much churn, don't worry
about it it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists