netdev - Re: [patch] pktgen: bug when calling ndelay in x86 architectures

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: <20111020.162444.559487256559727633.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:24:44 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, daniel.turull@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net, voravit@....se,
	jens.laas@...m.uu.se
Subject: Re: [patch] pktgen: bug when calling ndelay in x86 architectures

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:47:44 +0200

> Le mardi 18 octobre 2011 à 15:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> 
>> AIUI, the reason for limits on delays is not that it's bad practice to
>> spin for so long, but that the delay calculations may overflow or
>> otherwise become inaccurate.
> 
> OK, I can understand that, then a more appropriate patch would be :

I think doing the udelay/ndelay thing is the way to go for 'net' and
-stable.  We can do something sophisticated with ktime et al. in
'net-next'.

Eric, could you please formally submit this patch with proper
changelog etc.?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html