linux-kernel - Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:56:24 +0200
From:	"Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
To:	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
Cc:	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"john stultz" <johnstul@...ibm.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Roman Zippel" <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME?

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Michael Kerrisk
<mtk.manpages@...glemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Bart Van Assche
> <bart.vanassche@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
>>> The POSIX.1 specification of nanosleep() says:
>>>
>>>       But, except for the case of being interrupted by a signal, the
>>>       suspension time shall not be less than the time  specified  by
>>>       rqtp, as measured by the system clock CLOCK_REALTIME.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, reading kernel/hrtimer.c:sys_nanosleep(), it appears that
>>> CLOCK_MONOTONIC is used.
>>>
>>>    return hrtimer_nanosleep(&tu, rmtp, HRTIMER_MODE_REL, CLOCK_MONOTONIC);
>>>
>>> Is there a reason to use CLOCK_MONOTONIC, instead of CLOCK_REALTIME?  Is it
>>> intentional?  If yes, then I should document this in the man-pages.  If not,
>>> then it should be fixed.
>>
>> CLOCK_MONOTONIC works fine even if ntpd steps the clock forward or
>> backward, CLOCK_REALTIME not. So the man page should be fixed.
>
> Thanks for your reply, but I'm not quite convinced yet.  The things
> is: the Solaris man page also says "CLOCK_REALTIME".  (Of course that
> man page may just be parroting the standard.)  Could there not be some
> reasonable semantics for a nanosleep() that was based on
> CLOCK_REALTIME?

Sorry, but I don't think that a nanosleep() based on CLOCK_REALTIME
would have reasonable semantics. The first line of the description in
nanosleep()'s manpage says:
"nanosleep()  delays  the  execution  of  the program for at least the
time specified in *req". So you really need CLOCK_MONOTONIC and not
CLOCK_REALTIME.

The reason why CLOCK_REALTIME is mentioned is probably because other
POSIX man pages define three types of clocks: real, virtual and
profiiling. See e.g. the getitimer() man page
(http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/setitimer.html).
And an overview of all clock types defined by POSIX can be found here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/clock_getres.html.

Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/