Re: [PATCH] sys_prctl(): simplify arg2 judgment when calling PR_SET_TIMERSLACK
From: Cyrill Gorcunov
Date: Tue Jul 23 2019 - 05:48:15 EST
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:11:09PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > 2) according to man page passing negative value should be acceptable,
> > though it never worked as expected. I've been grepping "git log"
> > for this file and the former API is coming from
> > commit 6976675d94042fbd446231d1bd8b7de71a980ada
> > Author: Arjan van de Ven<arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon Sep 1 15:52:40 2008 -0700
> > hrtimer: create a "timer_slack" field in the task struct
> > which is 11 years old by now. Nobody complained so far even when man
> > page is saying pretty obviously
> > PR_SET_TIMERSLACK (since Linux 2.6.28)
> > Each thread has two associated timer slack values: a "default"
> > value, and a "current" value. This operation sets the "current"
> > timer slack value for the calling thread. If the nanosecond
> > value supplied in arg2 is greater than zero, then the "current"
> > value is set to this value. If arg2 is less than or equal to
> > zero, the "current" timer slack is reset to the thread's
> > "default" timer slack value.
> > So i think to match the man page (and assuming that accepting negative value
> > has been supposed) we should rather do
> > if ((long)arg2< 0)
> Looks correct. But if we set a ULONG_MAX(PR_GET_TIMERSLACK also limits ULONG_MAX)
> value(about 4s) on 32bit machine, this code will think this value is a negative value and use default value.
> I guess man page was written as "less than or equal to zero" because of this confusing code(arg2<=0, but arg2
> is an unsinged long value).
> I think we can change this man page and also add bounds value description.
OK, seems reasonable. I think we should use comparision with zero
and simply update a man page.