linux-kernel - Re: [tip:timers/urgent] Revert: Unify CLOCK_MONOTONIC and 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]

Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:     Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        SergeySenozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/urgent] Revert: Unify CLOCK_MONOTONIC and
 CLOCK_BOOTTIME

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:45 AM, tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
> <tipbot@...or.com> wrote:
> >
> > As stated in the pull request for the unification of CLOCK_MONOTONIC and
> > CLOCK_BOOTTIME, it was clear that we might have to revert the change.
> 
> I'm ok with the revert., but I do want the revert message to talk
> about *exactly* what broke.
> 
> I don't see the reported watchdog things, and I run systemd and I ran
> these patches.

With suspend/resume?

> So it's not just "systemd uses this for a watchdog". It must be
> something specific that made it trigger for some people and not
> others, and it's that specific thing that we should document so that
> we know why this simplification failed.

Fair enough. Do the reporters have more information or do I have to chase
it down myself?

Thanks,

	tglx