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, 23 Apr 2024 21:38:00 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...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

On Tue, Apr 16 2024 at 18:12, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> 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?

No. If it_value = 0 then the timer is disarmed, so it_interval is
irrelevant and just should be 0 for sanity sake.