linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in timespec64_to

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:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:38:43 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Hannen <lukas.hannen@...nsource.tttech-industrial.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in
 timespec64_to_ns()

On Fri, Sep 17 2021 at 10:25, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:32:17AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> I already got a private bug report vs. that on 5.10.65. Annoyingly
>> 5.10.5 does not have the issue despite the fact that the resulting diff
>> between those two versions in hrtimer.c is just in comments.

The bug report turned out to be a red hering. Probably caused by a
bisect gone wrong. The real culprit was the posix-cpu-timer change which
got reverted already.

> Looks like Sasha picked it up with the AUTOSEL process, and emailed you
> about this on Sep 5:
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210906012153.929962-12-sashal@kernel.org

which I obviously missed.

> I will revert it if you don't think it should be in the stable trees.

It's a pure performance improvement, so according to stable rules it
should not be there.

> Also, if you want AUTOSEL to not look at any hrtimer.c patches, just let
> us know and Sasha will add it to the ignore-list.

Nah. I try to pay more attention. I'm not against AUTOSEL per se, but
could we change the rules slightly?

Any change which is selected by AUTOSEL and lacks a Cc: stable@... is
put on hold until acked by the maintainer unless it is a prerequisite
for applying a stable tagged fix?

This can be default off and made effective on maintainer request.

Hmm?

Thanks,

        tglx