linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] timekeeping: Use time_after() in timekeeping_check

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <877cbv8ah1.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 21:01:14 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Chen Yufan <chenyufan@...o.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: opensource.kernel@...o.com, Chen Yufan <chenyufan@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] timekeeping: Use time_after() in
 timekeeping_check_update()

On Fri, Aug 30 2024 at 09:54, Chen Yufan wrote:
> Use time_after because the open coded comparison 
> does not handle wrap arounds correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Yufan <chenyufan@...o.com>
> ---
> The modifications made compared to the previous version are as follows:
> 1. change the type of timekeeper::last_warning to
> unsigned long because time_after() requires its
> parameters to be unsigned long.

The change of the struct member wants to be explained in the change log
and not in the version history. I told you so, no?

Thanks,

        tglx