linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] time: Add warning about imminent deprecation of CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL

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: <CALAqxLXFP3T=3CtCVQB6A+jML+XAs7eajxdVTpSBydag0_m0Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:23:15 -0700
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:     Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] time: Add warning about imminent deprecation of CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL_OLD

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:21:31PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL_OLD was introduced five years ago
>> to allow a transition from the old vsyscall implementations to
>> the new method (which simplified internal accounting and made
>> timekeeping more precise).
>>
>> However, PPC and IA64 have yet to make the transition, despite
>> in some cases me sending test patches to try to help it along.
>
> Did you see my patch converting PPC to the new method?  Did you have
> any comments on it?

Oh, somehow I missed it!  My apologies. That's great to see! It
roughly looks ok, but I'll need to look at it closer with fresh eyes
(and honestly, its complex enough I'm not sure I will be able to fully
mentally validate it :)

But I'll try to give it a look tomorrow.

thanks
-john