linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] xen: introduce XENPF

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9604059.Dn94ENEdgP@wuerfel>
Date:	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:27:49 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, Ian.Campbell@...rix.com,
	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	david.vrabel@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] xen: introduce XENPF_settime64

On Thursday 12 November 2015 12:16:47 Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/time.c b/arch/x86/xen/time.c
> >>> index 663c2ea..3bbd377 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/time.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/time.c
> >>> @@ -134,10 +134,10 @@ static int xen_pvclock_gtod_notify(struct
> >>> notifier_block *nb,
> >>>     if (!was_set && timespec_compare(&now, &next_sync) < 0)
> >>>             return NOTIFY_OK;
> >>>    -        op.cmd = XENPF_settime;
> >>> -   op.u.settime.secs = now.tv_sec;
> >>> -   op.u.settime.nsecs = now.tv_nsec;
> >>> -   op.u.settime.system_time = xen_clocksource_read();
> >>> +   op.cmd = XENPF_settime32;
> >>> +   op.u.settime32.secs = now.tv_sec;
> >>> +   op.u.settime32.nsecs = now.tv_nsec;
> >>> +   op.u.settime32.system_time = xen_clocksource_read();
> >> Can/should we switch to time64 here? (This would require a couple more changes
> >> but they would all be local to this routine).
> > I can do that, but it should be a separate patch. I'll queue it at the
> > end of the series.
> 
> Didn't Arnd just say that something needs to be done in the hypervisor 
> for that to work? Or did I misunderstood him?

What I meant is that we need to do both sides in order to actually use
64-bit times, but the patches are otherwise independent of one another
because a change to either side is not allowed to break the other.

	Arnd
--
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/