linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement check_timer

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: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:00:55 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Eric W.
 Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
 kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>, Carlos Llamas
 <cmllamas@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement
 check_timer_distribution()

On Sat, Apr 06 2024 at 17:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes, this changes the "semantics" of check_timer_distribution(), perhaps it
> should be renamed.

Definitely.

> But I do not see a better approach, and in fact I think that
>
> 	Test that all running threads _eventually_ receive CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID
>
> is the wrong goal.
>
> Do you agree?

No argument from my side. All we can test is that the leader is not
woken up.

Thanks,

        tglx