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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:09:28 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
cc:     Genki Sky <sky@...ki.is>, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock
 BOOTTIME

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, John Stultz wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Genki Sky <sky@...ki.is> wrote:
> > Quoting Genki Sky (2018/04/23 20:40:36 -0400)
> >> I came across this thread for same reason as [0]: Daemons getting
> >> killed by systemd on resume (after >WatchdogSec seconds of
> >> suspending). I'm using master branch of systemd and the kernel. As
> >> mentioned, systemd uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, originally expecting it to
> >> not include suspend time.
> >>
> >> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the ambiguity of whether
> >> this patch series breaks systemd. If it's implemented correctly, you'd
> >> hope it *would* break it!
> >
> > This sounded a little weak on re-reading, sorry. So, I just confirmed
> > that after booting a "git revert -m 1 680014d6d1da", the issue no
> > longer appears. (I.e., a suspend for >WatchDog sec doesn't result in
> > any daemon getting killed).
> >
> > Let me know if I can help in any way.
> 
> Yea, this is the sort of thing I was worried about.
> 
> Thomas: I think reverting this change is needed.

Sigh. I hoped that something like this would be catched before I sent the
pull request by those who were actually interested in this change...

I'll try to distangle it.

Thanks,

	tglx