linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock BOOTTIME

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.2.21.1803012009550.1391@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:10:49 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock
 BOOTTIME

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > This really needs lot of testing, documentation updates and more input from
> > > userspace folks to make a final decision.
> > 
> > Honestly, I don't think we'd get the testing this kind of change needs
> > except by just trying it.
> > 
> > I'm willing to merge this in the 4.17 merge window, with the
> > understanding that if people end up reporting issues, we may just have
> > to revert it all, and chalk it up to a learning experience - and add
> > the appropriate commentary in the kernel code about exactly what it
> > was that depended on that MONO/BOOT difference.
> 
> Fair enough. So we maybe just merge the first two patches and merge the
> cleanups and consolidation patches when we feel good enough.
> 
> I surely can queue the whole lot in next, but from PTI the experience I
> know how good the test coverage is. 4.14.stable would be the ideal testing
> ground. /me runs fast and hides

That said, at least the people who are asking for that should provide
testing results _before_ this gets applied or merged upstream.

Thanks,

	tglx