linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/3] Drivers: hv: utils: Support TimeSync version 4.0 protocol samples.

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]

Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB27300928557066E872D71B22D8FE0@DM5PR03MB2730.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:27:15 +0000
From:   "Alex Ng (LIS)" <alexng@...rosoft.com>
To:     Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
CC:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "leann.ogasawara@...onical.com" <leann.ogasawara@...onical.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] Drivers: hv: utils: Support TimeSync version 4.0
 protocol samples.

> On Thu, Sep 08, kys@...hange.microsoft.com wrote:
> 
> > -	default:
> > +	case(VERSION_WIN10):
> >  		util_fw_version = UTIL_FW_VERSION;
> >  		sd_srv_version = SD_VERSION;
> >  		ts_srv_version = TS_VERSION;
> >  		hb_srv_version = HB_VERSION;
> > +		break;
> > +	default:
> > +		util_fw_version = UTIL_FW_VERSION;
> > +		sd_srv_version = SD_VERSION;
> > +		ts_srv_version = TS_VERSION_3;
> > +		hb_srv_version = HB_VERSION;
> 
> Is this correct? An old kernel on a newer host would use the old protocol. I
> assume that new host will also know about the old protocol?

This is correct. An old kernel uses the old protocol even with the new host.
New hosts understand the old protocol.

> Perhaps a better approach would be to list the known existing hosts and use
> the new protocol for upcoming, unknown hosts via 'default:'.

This is a good idea. I will create another patch that addresses this.

> 
> Olaf