linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] posix-timers: make them configurable

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, 9 Sep 2016 09:48:57 +0200
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:     Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] posix-timers: make them configurable

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Also given many other syscalls take clockids and the backing logic
> isn't really getting removed (probably could cut the dynamic posix
> clocks core with the same conditional), I wonder if you could get a
> similar size win by taking a slightly more narrow cutting of the
> subsystem. That way you could preserve the more useful clock_gettime()
> functionality, but maybe stub out some of the less often used
> functionality.

I want to support tinification, but I also doubt the utility of
removing clock_gettime() and clock_nanosleep().  I can't imagine ever
building a user space without those.  In fact, thinking about IoT,
having good time is critical, and so these are the *last* functions I
would remove when downsizing.

Thanks,
Richard