lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:15:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:01:25AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Versus the 64bit overflow check, we need to be even more careful. We
> > > > need to check for overflowing (1 << 63) - 1 (i.e. the max positive
> > > > value which fits into a s64). See clockevents_program_event().
> > >
> > > That is because you interpret times < 0 as in the past, right? But note
> > > that the interim result we're talking about here is still to be divided
> > > by evt->mult. So assuming mult > 1, that check is too strict unless you
> > > move it below the do_div in clockevent_delta2ns. For sure it makes sense
> > > to use the same value for a and b in the handling:
> >
> > No, it's not too strict.
> >
> > nsec = (latch << shift) / mult;
> >
> > Now the backwards conversion does:
> >
> > latch = (nsec * mult) >> shift;
> >
> > So we want nsec * mult to be in the positive range of s64. Which
> > means, that latch << shift must be in that range as well.
> The backwards conversion is in clockevents_program_event(), right? There
> is:
>
> clc = ((unsigned long long) delta * dev->mult) >> dev->shift;
>
> So I don't see a problem if nsec * mult overflows (1 << 63) - 1 as long
> as it still fits into an unsigned long long (i.e. a 64 bit value).

Right. It doesn't matter.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-19 15:41    [W:0.152 / U:1.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site