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

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Feb 20 2013 - 16:43:55 EST

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.


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