linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio

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, 13 Mar 2024 15:50:54 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
	"virtio-comment@...ts.oasis-open.org" <virtio-comment@...ts.oasis-open.org>,
	"Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	"Ridoux, Julien" <ridouxj@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio_rtc module and related changes

On 13/03/2024 14:06:42+0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> If you're asking why patch 7/7 in Peter's series exists to expose the
> virtio clock through RTC, and you're not particularly interested in the
> first six, I suppose that's a fair question. As is the question of "why
> is it called virtio_rtc not virtio_ptp?". 
> 

Exactly my question, thanks :)

> But let me turn it around: if the kernel has access to this virtio
> device and *not* any other RTC, why *wouldn't* the kernel use the time
> from it? The fact that it can optionally *also* provide paired readings
> with the CPU counter doesn't actually *hurt* for the RTC use case, does
> it?

As long as it doesn't behave differently from the other RTC, I'm fine
with this. This is important because I don't want to carry any special
infrastructure for this driver or to have to special case this driver
later on because it is incompatible with some evolution of the
subsystem.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com