linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] allow userspace to adjust kvmclock offset

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:23:36 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
CC:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow userspace to adjust kvmclock offset

On 10/15/2009 04:58 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> The motivation for relative adjustment is when you have a jitter
>> resistant place to gather timing information (like the kernel, which can
>> disable interrupts and preemption), then pass it on to kvm without
>> losing information due to scheduling.  For migration there is no such
>> place since it involves two hosts, but it makes sense to support
>> relative adjustments.
>>      
> Since we added the padding you asked for, we could use that bit of information
> to define whether it will be a relative or absolute adjustment, then. Right now,
> I don't see the point of implementing a code path that will be completely untested.
>
> I'd leave it this way until someone comes up with a need.
>    

I agree with that, but padding by itself is insufficient.  You also need 
a flags field.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/