linux-kernel - Clocksource with rating 0 marked unstable twice

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

Message-ID: <20090220045749.GC8151@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:57:49 -0800
From:	Josh Hunt <josh@...lex86.org>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kiran@...lex86.org
Subject: Clocksource with rating 0 marked unstable twice

I have a system with TSCs which are known to be unsynchronized.
During TSC initialization it is marked as unstable, but later on in
the boot the clocksource watchdog code also marks it unstable.  This
seems a bit redundant as both set the rating to 0.

<dmesg snippet>
[    0.000000] Marking TSC unstable due to TSCs unsynchronized
...
[    4.740022] Clocksource tsc unstable (delta = 4380394573887 ns)
</dmesg snippet>

I can think of two solutions, both modifying clocksource_register
when rating is 0:

1. Do not call clocksource_check_watchdog. This way the clocksource
is not put on the watchdog list.

2. Do not enqueue the clocksource or do any registering.  Is there a
good reason to keep around a clocksource which has a rating of 0?

Which of these would be better?  I can provide a patch for either.

Thanks
Josh
--
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/