linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] posix-timers: make them configurable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2016 01:00:34 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] posix-timers: make them configurable

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:48:57AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > Also given many other syscalls take clockids and the backing logic
> > isn't really getting removed (probably could cut the dynamic posix
> > clocks core with the same conditional), I wonder if you could get a
> > similar size win by taking a slightly more narrow cutting of the
> > subsystem. That way you could preserve the more useful clock_gettime()
> > functionality, but maybe stub out some of the less often used
> > functionality.
> 
> I want to support tinification, but I also doubt the utility of
> removing clock_gettime() and clock_nanosleep().  I can't imagine ever
> building a user space without those.  In fact, thinking about IoT,
> having good time is critical, and so these are the *last* functions I
> would remove when downsizing.

1) If you already have another function providing time and don't need two.
2) If you run an entirely event-driven loop and don't sleep.