linux-kernel - Re: PATCH: Allow user to force 'tsc' to be treated as stable.

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: <200902052218.46235.elendil@planet.nl>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:18:45 +0100
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: PATCH:  Allow user to force 'tsc' to be treated as stable.

Ben Greear wrote:
> +       if (force_tsc_stable && (strcmp(cs->name, "tsc") == 0))
> +               printk(KERN_WARNING "Forcing tsc to be treated as stable due to force_tsc_stable=1\n");
> +       else { 
> +               printk(KERN_WARNING "  This clock is no longer valid for WATCHDOG or HIGH-RES.\n");
> +               if (strcmp(cs->name, "tsc") == 0)
> +                       printk(KERN_WARNING "  Use force_tsc_stable=1 to override.\n");

Do we really want to be so verbose?

Loads of users get these messages (I get it on both my laptops) and IIUC
the workaround is only valid for a very limited group of users.

I'd suggest dropping the "else" branch. It seems inadvisable to encourage
workarounds that may not be valid (or even safe).

Cheers,
FJP
--
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/