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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:38:53 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dave.taht@...ferbloat.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] /dev/random: Insufficient of entropy on many architectures On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:38:56PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > So the end of timekeeping_init() may not be what you want here. This > only means we've started up the timekeping core with only the default > clocksource (with only few exceptions, this is almost always jiffies). > Then as clocksource drivers are initialized, they are registered and > the timekeeping core will switch over to the best available > clocksource. Also, to avoid the churn at boot of switching to every > clocksource registered, we queue them up and wait until fs_init time > to switch to whatever is the best available then. Is there any indication in the clocksource structures where we can determine what the cost (in CPU, time, bus overhead, etc.) for a particular clock source, verus the granularity of the clock source? Also, is it always safe to read from a clock source from an interrupt handler? Thanks, - Ted -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists