linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/clock: interface to allow timestamps early in boot

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708281714080.1867@nanos>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 17:15:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/clock: interface to allow timestamps early
 in boot

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Called once during to boot to initialize boot time.
> > > + */
> > > +void read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *ts)
> > 
> > And because its called only once, it does not need to be marked __init()
> > and must be kept around forever, right?
> 
> This is because every other architecture implements read_boot_clock64()
> without __init: arm, s390. Beside, the original weak stub does not have __init
> macro. So, I can certainly try to add it for x86, but I am not sure what is
> the behavior once __init section is gone, but weak implementation stays.

And what about fixing that everywhere?

Just because something is wrong, it does not mean that it needs to be
proliferated.

Thanks,

	tglx