linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 20/50] posix-timers: Consolidate timer setup

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: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:12:56 +0200
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, John Stultz
 <jstultz@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar
 <mingo@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Eric Biederman
 <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 20/50] posix-timers: Consolidate timer setup

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> hrtimer based and CPU timers have their own way to install the new interval
> and to reset overrun and signal handling related data.
>
> Create a helper function and do the same operation for all variants.
>
> This also makes the handling of the interval consistent. It's only stored
> when the timer is actually armed, i.e. timer->it_value != 0. Before that it
> was stored unconditionally for posix CPU timers and conditionally for the
> other posix timers.

Shouldn't we do this similar to the gettime() and set it_interval
unconditionally?

Thanks,

	Anna-Maria