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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:25:51 +0200
From:	Richard Cochran <>
To:	Thomas Shao <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	KY Srinivasan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hyperv: Implement Time Synchronization using host
 time sample

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:04:35PM +0000, Thomas Shao wrote:
> > I really don't see the need for this. We have NTP. If the guests want to, they
> > may use it. Otherwise, they have a free running clock, just like real machines.
> > 
> Sometimes the user can't setup NTP. For example the guest OS didn't have network
> connection. And in some cases, they may want the guest time sync with host. 
> With the existing hyper-v time source, the system clock will has around 1.5 second
> time drift per day. If the workload in the host is heavy, the number could be larger.
> So this feature is really useful for some scenarios.

Any real machine without networking (and without GPS etc) will
drift. That is just life, tough as it is. Why should we treat these
guests any differently than real machines?

Furthermore, without networking you really don't have a compelling
need for correct absolute time in the first place.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists