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: <87fufykiar.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:   Sun, 21 May 2017 12:49:56 +0930
From:   Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock

John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> writes:
> 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.

Yep, we did it with nfsim, but forward porting was a PITA.  Good luck!

Rusty.