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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:36:31 +0100 From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Richard Cochran <richard.cochran@...cron.at>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup ADJ_SETOFFSET patch On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:53:32PM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: > {sec, nsec} sum > ------------------------- > {-2, +600000000} -1.4 > {-2, +700000000} -1.3 > {-2, +800000000} -1.2 > {-2, +900000000} -1.1 > {-1, 000000000} -1.0 > {-1, +100000000} -0.9 > {-1, +200000000} -0.8 > {-1, +300000000} -0.7 > > If we say that the time value or interval in a timespec is always the > sum of the fields, still it would seem that the ktime code is broken > according to that assumption. Okay, now I think I get it. The value of a timespec is the sum of its fields. The tv_nsec field should always be non-negative. So, if a user space program wants to jump the clock back by one-tenth second, it must pass a timespec with value {-1,900000000}. Right? Thanks, Richard -- 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