linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V1 0/5] Rationalize time keeping

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: <4FA2A8DC.10905@linaro.org>
Date:	Thu, 03 May 2012 08:48:44 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V1 0/5] Rationalize time keeping

On 05/03/2012 12:02 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:56:16PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> No. So, on architectures that support vsyscalls/vdso (x86_64,
>> powerpc, ia64, and maybe a few others) getnstimeofday() is really
>> only an internal interface for in-kernel access. Userland uses the
>> vsyscall/vdso interface to be able to read the time completely from
>> userland context (with no syscall overhead). Since this is done in
>> different ways for each architecture, you need to export the proper
>> information out via update_vsyscall() and also update the
>> arch-specific vsyscall gettimeofday paths (which is non-trivial, as
>> some arches are implemented in asm, etc - my sympathies here, its a
>> pain).
> Okay, so now I understand the vDSO page thingy. Help me please to
> understand exactly which architectures would need changes for my
> proposal.
>
> The only archs exporting time variables/functions through vDSO are
> those which define CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL=y, namely:
>
> - ia64
> - powerpc 64 and 32 bit
> - s390    64 and 32 bit
> - x86     64 bit only **
>
>    ** But 32 guest running in a 64 host also has time in the vDSO?!?
   Yes, but at least on x86 its just one implementation that needs to be 
modified.

>
> Did I get that right?
That looks right to me.

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/