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:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:11:41 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Stephen N Chivers <schivers@....com.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Philip Blundell <philb@....org>,
        Joshua Thompson <funaho@...ai.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/13] m68k: Drop ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> 
> Running a recent kernel under ARAnyM shows 40 ns resolution so the Atari 
> hardware emulation is a little more complete.
> 

You mean, 40 us resolution, right?

> Using that for initial tests, I can confirm that timer resolution is 
> reduced to 10ms after patch 6, and gets restored to 40ns after applying 
> the full series

Thanks for testing!

> (once clocksource_init runs, that is - the first part of the boot is at 
> 10ms resolution only, a regression compared to with use of 
> arch_gettimeoffset).
> 

Sounds like a theoretical regression (?)

Is there any need for more precise timers (I mean, better than 40 us) 
before clocksource_init runs?

> Unfortunately, I can't log in at the console with all patches applied. I 
> immediately get the 'login timeout exceeded' message. Weird...
> 

I didn't see that in my tests... Was this aranym or real hardware or both?

Can you also test tree fbf8405cd982 please?

-- 

> Cheers,
> 
> 	Michael
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ