linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] timekeeping: Fix CLOCK

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: <20131213141023.GC12379@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:10:23 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] timekeeping: Fix CLOCK_TAI timer/nanosleep
 delays


* John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:

> > If the bugs extend to more than this two-liner then for -stable it 
> > might be better to just disable CLOCK_TAI (userspace can deal with 
> > it just fine), and queue up the right fixes for the next merge 
> > window or so.
> 
> I don't foresee further issues (famous last words, eh), but since I 
> was planning on keeping patch #4 and #5 for 3.14 anyway, we can wait 
> till those land upstream to decide if the two-liner is sufficient or 
> if disabling CLOCK_TAI in older -stable kernels is the right 
> approach. That sound ok?

Yeah, that certainly sounds good to me.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/