| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d94a6cbd-b729-1221-82be-107b5cc57482@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:54:10 +0200
From: Bernard f6bvp <f6bvp@...e.fr>
To: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Osterried DL9SAU <thomas@...erg.in-berlin.de>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rose timer t error displayed in /proc/net/rose
After applying patch rose->timer displays still t underflow value
dest_addr dest_call src_addr src_call dev lci neigh st vs vr va
t t1 t2 t3 hb idle Snd-Q Rcv-Q inode
2080175524 WP-0 2080175524 NODE-0 rose0 002 00001 1 0 0 0 122
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 37356
* * 2080175524 ROUTE-0 rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 35195
* * 2080175524 F6BVP-15 rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 35194
2080835201 WP-0 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 032 00002 1 0 0 0 1
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 41389
2080175520 WP-0 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 032 00003 1 0 0 0 1
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 41388
2080175527 WP-0 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 032 00004 1 0 0 0 1
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 41387
* * 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 36456
2080175524 WP-0 2080175524 FPAD-0 rose0 001 00001 1 0 0 0
73786976294838206 200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 36437
* * 2080175524 ??????-? rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 36436
root@...ntu-f6bvp:/home/bernard# cat /proc/net/rose
dest_addr dest_call src_addr src_call dev lci neigh st vs vr va
t t1 t2 t3 hb idle Snd-Q Rcv-Q inode
2080175524 WP-0 2080175524 NODE-0 rose0 002 00001 1 0 0 0 115
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 37356
* * 2080175524 ROUTE-0 rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 35195
* * 2080175524 F6BVP-15 rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 35194
2080835201 WP-0 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 032 00002 2 0 0 0 178
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 41389
2080175520 WP-0 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 032 00003 2 0 0 0 178
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 41388
2080175527 WP-0 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 032 00004 2 0 0 0 178
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 41387
* * 2080175524 WP-0 rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 36456
2080175524 WP-0 2080175524 FPAD-0 rose0 001 00001 2 0 0 0 178
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 36437
* * 2080175524 ??????-? rose0 000 00000 0 0 0 0 0
200 180 180 5 0/000 0 0 36436
Le 01/08/2022 à 02:39, Francois Romieu a écrit :
> Bernard f6bvp <f6bvp@...e.fr> :
>> Rose proc timer t error
>>
>> Timer t is decremented one by one during normal operations.
>>
>> When decreasing from 1 to 0 it displays a very large number until next clock
>> tic as demonstrated below.
>>
>> t1, t2 and t3 are correctly handled.
> "t" is ax25_display_timer(&rose->timer) / HZ whereas "tX" are rose->tX / HZ.
>
> ax25_display_timer() does not like jiffies > timer->expires (and it should
> probably return plain seconds btw).
>
> You may try the hack below.
>
> diff --git a/net/ax25/ax25_timer.c b/net/ax25/ax25_timer.c
> index 85865ebfdfa2..b77433fff0c9 100644
> --- a/net/ax25/ax25_timer.c
> +++ b/net/ax25/ax25_timer.c
> @@ -108,10 +108,9 @@ int ax25_t1timer_running(ax25_cb *ax25)
>
> unsigned long ax25_display_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> {
> - if (!timer_pending(timer))
> - return 0;
> + long delta = timer->expires - jiffies;
>
> - return timer->expires - jiffies;
> + return jiffies_delta_to_clock_t(delta) * HZ;
> }
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(ax25_display_timer);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists