linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 09/25] timer: Split out get next timer functionality

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: <875y3fphju.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:17:09 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/25] timer: Split out get next timer functionality

On Wed, Oct 04 2023 at 14:34, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Split out get next timer functionality to make it reusable in other
> places. Thereby the order of getting the next expiry, forwarding the base
> clock and mark timer bases as idle, is changed. This change of order
> shouldn't have any impact, as nothing inside the function relies on the
> idle value or the updated timer base clock.

This interestingly corrects the issue of patch 8/25 because

> +	nextevt = __get_next_timer_interrupt(basej, base);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We have a fresh next event. Check whether we can forward the
> @@ -1952,14 +1968,10 @@ u64 get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long basej, u64 basem)
>  	 */
>  	base->is_idle = time_after(nextevt, basej + 1);

base->is_idle is now handled in the correct order vs. the nextevt evaluation.
  
> -	if (base->timers_pending) {
> -		/* If we missed a tick already, force 0 delta */
> -		if (time_before(nextevt, basej))
> -			nextevt = basej;
> -		expires = basem + (u64)(nextevt - basej) * TICK_NSEC;
> -	}
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);

Thanks,

        tglx