From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, y2038@lists.linaro.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>,
linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: x86: mce: always use 64-bit timestamps
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:51:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180618125106.GB24921@zn.tnic> (raw)
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:06:46PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The machine check timestamp uses get_seconds(), which returns an 'unsigned long'
> number that might overflow on 32-bit architectures (in the distant future)
> and is therefore deprecated.
>
> The normal replacement would be ktime_get_real_seconds(), but that needs to
> use a sequence lock that might cause a deadlock if the mce happens at just
> the wrong moment. The __ktime_get_real_seconds() skips that lock and is
> safer here, but has a miniscule risk of returning the wrong time when we read
> it on a 32-bit architecture at the same time as updating the epoch, i.e.
> from before y2106 overflow time to after, or vice versa.
>
> This seems to be an acceptable risk in this particular case, and is the
> same thing we do in kdb.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Applied, thanks.
next reply other threads:[~2018-06-18 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-18 12:51 Borislav Petkov [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-06-18 10:06 x86: mce: always use 64-bit timestamps Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180618125106.GB24921@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=y2038@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=yazen.ghannam@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox