linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Move ntp state to be protected by timekeeping lock

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]

Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:14:44 +0100
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Move ntp state to be protected by timekeeping lock

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 01:08:10PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:

> This patchset makes the lock ownership lines less obvious, but I've
> been sure to keep the ntp state static to ntp.c and instead provided
> some accessors via ntp-internal.h that timekeping code can use to
> make changes.  The only really ugly part is that do_adjtimex() has
> to split some of the logic between timekeeping.c and ntp.c in order
> to really get the locking done correctly.

I didn't find this too ugly or troublesome. The reshuffling you have
here looks straightforward to me.

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/