[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20891683-5df9-42f8-b7a8-2b9cff679062@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:04:12 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Steffen Klassert" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] xfrm: consistently use time64_t in xfrm_timer_handler()
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 12:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> For some reason, blamed commit did the right thing in xfrm_policy_timer()
> but did not in xfrm_timer_handler()
>
> Fixes: 386c5680e2e8 ("xfrm: use time64_t for in-kernel timestamps")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
I don't remember anything about this one. I thought that perhaps it
was using 'long' for a relative value that is guaranteed to fit
but needs an otherwise expensive 64-bit division. I don't see
any of that though, it looks like an obvious bug.
Thanks for fixing it,
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists