| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87oci776bd.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:47:34 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow Intel platforms to declare unsynchronized TSC to kernel Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com> writes: > (2010/03/29 16:46), Andi Kleen wrote: >> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes: >> >>> Allow Intel platforms to declare unsynchronized TSC to kernel >>> >>> [This came out of a private discussion with Linus last week] >> >> Ping? Please review this patch. >> >> -Andi > > Does "constant" implicitly means "synchronized"? Yes it does for the CPUID bit. > Following commit tells us that there could be > "constant-but-unsynchronized TSC": > 6c56ccecf05fafe100ab4ea94f6fccbf5ff00db7 >> So, reenable TSC sync test even on constant and non-stop TSC systems. First the platform is supposed to clear in this case and when it doesn't the later check catches it anyways. BTW all the things you're mentioning are not actually changed by my patch. In this regard it behaves the same as before. I don't think the patch description has to describe things it does not change or be a general tutorial on TSCs. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists