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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080428084630.GA1623@iram.es>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:46:30 +0200
From:	Gabriel Paubert <paubert@...m.es>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	benh@...abs.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, arndb@...ibm.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: cpu_clock confusion

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.

100% agreed. 

	Gabriel
--
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/