linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse 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: <CABeXuvojLcAzBXLjcdtt8Dii_mUqO=Kc5iJzQOKzP3aU8p5ApA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:23:55 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
        Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

> The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp
> is required and is likely an oversight.  Using a coarser, but monotically
> increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated.

You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably.
I was aware that current_kernel_time64() could also be used if lesser
granularity was preferred and that it was faster.
I forgot to note that in the commit text.

-Deepa