linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock

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

Message-ID: <CALAqxLX+-gQzQ2-sbwmNn=A6C1XXKB00-XrehyX4nqV=3_wNAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2017 17:35:38 -0700
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:06:07PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > Is there a better way to run the timekeeping code in an userspace
>> > application? I suspect it would need something like the Linux Kernel
>> > Library project.
>>
>> I dunno. There's probably a cleaner way to go about it, but I also
>> feel like the benefit of just having the test in the kernel tree is
>> that it can be managed as a unified whole, rather then the test being
>> a separate thing and always playing catchup to kernel changes.
>
> I vaguely recall a rant on the list years ago from a Linux bigwhig
> saying how we don't support that kind of thing.  But maybe it is my
> imagination.  In any case, IMHO running user space tests for chunks of
> kernel code can be quite useful.

So a few years ago I mentioned this at a testing session at I think
Linux Plubmers' and Rusty (CC'ed) commented that he had some netfilter
(or iptables?) simulator code that never made it upstream. However,
now that kselftests are integrated with the kernel this could change.
At least that's my memory of the discussion.

Anyway, I still think its worth trying to submit. Worse case its a
huge pain and we pull it back out?

thanks
-john