linux-kernel - Re: cpu_clock confusion

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]

Message-Id: <1209029257.3357.55.camel@johannes.berg>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:27:37 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, benh@...abs.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	arndb@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: cpu_clock confusion

On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 02:24 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:21:52 +0200
> 
> > Hmm. Why is that whole cpu_clock stuff in place anyway? powerpc has
> > perfectly synchronised time across processors with dirt cheap access to
> > it as well, so why build all this code that only messes it up on top of
> > it?
> 
> Same on sparc64.  These changes add more bugs than they fix.

I tend to think all this clock business should be done local to those
arches that aren't capable of providing cheap, useful synchronised and
accurate clocks themselves. Or be a lib that they can link in if needed.
As it stands, it seems to me that it all just penalises those
architectures that have decent clocks.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)