On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:46:18 +0100
Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> I just stumbled over code added by this older patch, and can't make sense
> of the commit description here. Was this an attempt to fix a bug, or
> just a cleanup?
Thanks Arnd for mentioning/posting this! This was an attempt at a clean
up, unfortunately I made a mistake which introduced a bug.
> > - then = ns_to_timespec64(delta);
> > mutex_lock(&pf->tmreg_lock);
> >
> > i40e_ptp_read(pf, &now);
> > - now = timespec64_add(now, then);
> > + timespec64_add_ns(&now, delta);
> > i40e_ptp_write(pf, (const struct timespec64 *)&now);
>
> The problem I noticed here is that 'delta' is a user provided 64-bit
> number from clock_adjtime(), and timespec64_add_ns() performs uses
> a repeated addition instead of a div/mod pair. When the number
> is large, we may end up adding a single second 8 billion times,
> which may take a while even on a fast CPU.
>
> Should the commit 0ac30ce43323 ("i40e: fix up 32 bit timespec
> references") just be reverted?
Interestingly, we just were discussing this fix this past Friday, and
have a patch internally to fix the issue correctly. Either way it
is a commit (revert or fix) so we might as well just send the fix ASAP.
Our team should have something posted to intel-wired-lan/netdev shortly,
and we'll get the patch officially to netdev after a brief test.
