linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: convert x86_platform

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: <57be470f-0f45-cdb8-09d2-15a6dd0c3054@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:08:22 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: convert x86_platform_ops to timespec64

On 16/10/2017 10:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Thanks!
> 
> Since you've looked at it overall, do you have an opinion on the question
> how to fix the PV interface to deal with the pvclock_wall_clock overflow?

It has to be done separately for each hypervisor.

In KVM, for example, it is probably best to abandon
pvclock_read_wallclock altogether, and instead use the recently
introduced KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING hypercall.  drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm.c is
already using it and it's y2106 safe.

Paolo

> Should we add a new version now and deprecate the existing one, or
> do you think that y2106 is far enough out that we should just ignore the
> problem?