Re: [PATCH] posix-timer: don't call idr_find() w/ negative ID

From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Wed Feb 20 2013 - 16:47:22 EST

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Hey, Thomas.
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:38:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I can grumpily accept the patch below as a quick hack fix, which can
> > go to stable as well, but not with such a patently misleading
> > changelog.
> >
> > The changelog wants to document, that this is not a proper fix at all
> > and just a quick hack which can be nonintrusively applied to stable.
> I'm not sure about what type timer_t can be but if it can actually be
> u64 as Andrew suggests, we probably want a different test guarding it.
> > > Note that the previous code was theoretically broken. idr_find()
> > > masked off the sign bit before performing lookup and if the matching
> > > IDs were in use, it would have returned pointer for the incorrect
> > > entry.
> >
> > Brilliant code that. What's the purpose of having the idr id as an
> > "int" and then masking off the sign bit instead of simply refusing
> > negative id values in the idr code itself or simply making the id
> > "unsigned int" ?
> Beats me. The code has been like that since the beginning. One of
> the many oddities of idr implementation. Patch to remove MAX_IDR_MASK
> is already queued in -mm w/ other idr updates.

Missed that, but good to know that this insanity is going to be gone


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at