linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt

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: <20160222231232.GD25240@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:12:32 +0100
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] x86/rtc: replace paravirt_enabled()
 check with subarch check

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:34:26AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 05:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:07:56AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
> >>index 1ae89a2721d6..fe0d579b63e3 100644
> >>--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
> >>+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
> >>@@ -84,11 +84,14 @@ struct x86_init_paging {
> >>   *				boot cpu
> >>   * @timer_init:			initialize the platform timer (default PIT/HPET)
> >>   * @wallclock_init:		init the wallclock device
> >>+ * @no_cmos_rtc:		set when platform has no CMOS real-time clock
> >>+ * 				present
> >>   */
> >>  struct x86_init_timers {
> >>  	void (*setup_percpu_clockev)(void);
> >>  	void (*timer_init)(void);
> >>  	void (*wallclock_init)(void);
> >>+	bool no_cmos_rtc;
> >I'd add
> >
> >	u64 flags;
> >
> >to x86_init_ops and then set X86_PLATFORM_NO_RTC or so in there. The
> >reason being, others could use that flags field too, for other stuff and
> >define more bits.
> 
> Maybe timer_flags or platform_flags (or something else) to be a
> little more cscope-friendly?

Sure, I'll go with platform_flags on x86_init_ops. Will repost a new
series after 0-day testing.

  Luis