Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-125272-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <a6e236f3-60a4-48da-840f-c38d7ba02475@ancud.ru>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:56:16 +0300
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Fix buffer overlow in print_cpu_stall_info()
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
 Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
 Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
 Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>, Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
 rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
References: <20240328181914.869332-1-kiryushin@ancud.ru>
 <e3d3a612-4751-48ac-82c1-8bf61e8f3cd1@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@ancud.ru>
In-Reply-To: <e3d3a612-4751-48ac-82c1-8bf61e8f3cd1@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Thank you for the feedback!
> would you like to resend keeping the buffer-overflow fix but leaving
> out the signed-to-unsigned conversion?
>
I will make a second version of the patch, without
conversion as it is intentional.
> However, the signed output is intentional.  The idea is that if the
> timekeeping code is confused enough to run the jiffies counter backwards,
> we see a small negative number rather than a huge positive number.
> For example, -132 is immediately obvious, while the 64-bit unsigned
> equivalent of 18446744073709551484 might not be.
I had suspicions that was the case, however, I did not find the pointers
in the code or in the commit message, that it was intentional, so I assumed
a mistake.
Maybe, it would be a good idea for me to add a comment with intent
clarification, to reduce possibility of the same confusion in the future,
while I am at it? If so, should I do it in the same patch, or make a separate one?