linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 4/6] time: introduce leap second functional interface

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: <4FBBAC59.1000805@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 08:10:17 -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 V2 4/6] time: introduce leap second functional interface

On 05/21/2012 09:25 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:24:57PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> The locking order is pretty straight forward: timekeeper.lock ->
>> ntp_lock.   This only gets messy when you require timekeeping data
>> from the ntp context, but usually we provide the required data via
>> the caller.  But better documentation is always welcome.
> The icky part is the fact that ntp would need access to timekeeper
> state while holding ntp_lock.
Well, that needs to be reworked so it doesn't.  :)   Again, passing the 
required time state to NTP functions from the timekeeping context should 
handle these issues, and for those few NTP paths that aren't triggered 
from the timekeeping core (do_adjtimex basically), we can grab the 
required time state before taking the ntp lock as we have been doing.

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/