linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system 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:   Thu, 18 May 2017 06:54:35 +0200
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:     Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:06:07PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Is there a better way to run the timekeeping code in an userspace
> > application? I suspect it would need something like the Linux Kernel
> > Library project.
> 
> I dunno. There's probably a cleaner way to go about it, but I also
> feel like the benefit of just having the test in the kernel tree is
> that it can be managed as a unified whole, rather then the test being
> a separate thing and always playing catchup to kernel changes.

I vaguely recall a rant on the list years ago from a Linux bigwhig
saying how we don't support that kind of thing.  But maybe it is my
imagination.  In any case, IMHO running user space tests for chunks of
kernel code can be quite useful.

Thanks,
Richard