linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Alpha support for QEMU

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: <20130718011435.GA20007@stolen.phys.waikato.ac.nz>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:14:35 +1200
From:	Michael Cree <cree@...kato.ac.nz>
To:	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
	mattst88@...il.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Alpha support for QEMU

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:34:08AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The series seems pretty stable under QEMU, but I have no real hardware
> on which to test -- the whole reason I'm interested in QEMU of course.
> So I'm hoping that someone will notice this and help me out with testing.

Tested the patch series applied against 3.10.1 on a 3-CPU ES45.  System came
up fine but I noticed date was wrong and had been reset back to the start
of the epoch (Jan 1 1970).  Appears it is not reading hardware clock
correctly on boot.

I manually set the clock to the correct time but noticed it is running slow,
indeed in a period of 60s the system clock incremented by 21s (+/-1s) so
would appear clock is running slow by a factor given by the number of CPUs.

Cheers
Michael
--
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/