linux-kernel - Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be 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:	Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:27:33 +0200
From:	"Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
To:	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
Cc:	"Roman Zippel" <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"john stultz" <johnstul@...ibm.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME?

>> nor by adjtimex() (this last one is used by ntpd).
>
> That surprised me a little.  So gradual adjustments to the time made
> by adjtime() / adjtimex() really don't affect nanosleep()?

Does the adjtime() system call still exist ? I could not find any
information about this system call in the 2.6.25 kernel source code.

Frequency adjustments made via the adjtimex() system call do affect
nanosleep() of course (via timex::freq and/or timex::tick). Stepwise
time adjustments, whether gradual or not, should not affect
nanosleep().

Bart.
--
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/