linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] trace: add tracepoints to timekeeping code

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:	Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:23:31 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	acme@...stprotocols.net, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, tglx@...utronix.de, johnstul@...ibm.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] trace: add tracepoints to timekeeping code - xtime
 changes

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:55:03PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> Trace points in timekeeping.c where xtime is modified by a user
> or ntp.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/trace/events/timekeeping.h |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c          |    8 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 include/trace/events/timekeeping.h
> 
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/timekeeping.h b/include/trace/events/timekeeping.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..3d5d083
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/trace/events/timekeeping.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> +#undef TRACE_SYSTEM
> +#define TRACE_SYSTEM timekeeping
> +
> +#if !defined(_TRACE_TIMEKEEP_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
> +#define _TRACE_TIMEKEEP_H
> +
> +#include <linux/tracepoint.h>
> +#include <linux/time.h>
> +
> +DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(tod_template,
> +
> +	TP_PROTO(const struct timespec *tv),
> +
> +	TP_ARGS(tv),
> +
> +	TP_STRUCT__entry(
> +		__field( __kernel_time_t,	tv_sec)
> +		__field( long,			tv_nsec)
> +	),
> +
> +	TP_fast_assign(
> +		__entry->tv_sec  = tv->tv_sec;
> +		__entry->tv_nsec = tv->tv_nsec;
> +	),
> +
> +	TP_printk("tv_sec=%ld tv_nsec=%ld", __entry->tv_sec, __entry->tv_nsec)
> +);
> +
> +DEFINE_EVENT(tod_template, settimeofday,
> +	TP_PROTO(const struct timespec *tv),
> +	TP_ARGS(tv));
> +
> +DEFINE_EVENT(tod_template, timekeeping_inject_offset,
> +	TP_PROTO(const struct timespec *tv),
> +	TP_ARGS(tv));
> +
> +DEFINE_EVENT(tod_template, timekeeping_inject_sleeptime,
> +	TP_PROTO(const struct timespec *tv),
> +	TP_ARGS(tv));

Does the fact it's any of the three way of updating xtime make any
difference from the user point of view?

If not can we rather factorize that in a single settimeofday tracepoint?
Or update_time_of_day if we don't want to confuse the user with the
syscall.
--
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/