linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V8 02/13] ntp: add ADJ

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: <1294693892.3068.17.camel@work-vm>
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:11:32 -0800
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	"Kuwahara,T." <6vvetjsrt26xsrzlh1z0zn4d2grdah@...il.com>
Cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 02/13] ntp: add ADJ_SETOFFSET mode bit

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 05:47 +0900, Kuwahara,T. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Richard Cochran
> <richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> > the PTP Hardware Clocks for which this whole patch
> > set was created in the first place will keep their time as TAI.
> 
> Are you sure of that?  I don't have the standard handy (it's non-free,
> right?) but it seems that the Annex B states differently.  But that's
> not the point anyway.  My concern is that your patch not only adds the
> useless (and broken) feature to the existing syscall but also makes a
> permanent change to the public interface for your own use.  That's
> what I'm against.  So if you stop touching the struct timex, I won't
> complain anymore.

You still haven't explained *why* you're so protective of the timex and
adjtimex interfaces.  While I do want to keep compatible the
functionality where possible, I don't see why Linux should be limited by
what other OSes do.

Injecting an offset to the system time seems like a reasonable thing for
adjtimex to do (rather then adding a new syscall). Further utilizing a
new mode bit for this functionality seems reasonable and cleaner then
your suggestions for utilizing existing mode bits in combined with other
magic bits. If there is a compelling reason why not to do this, do
please let us know! We might just agree with you after hearing it. :)

thanks
-john


--
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/