linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support

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: <e90998e35275e1a53db4dc028d3f78eacb64a113.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:14:10 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,  linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, "Ridoux,
 Julien" <ridouxj@...zon.com>,  virtio-dev@...ts.linux.dev, "Luu, Ryan"
 <rluu@...zon.com>, "Chashper, David" <chashper@...zon.com>
Cc: "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>,  Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
 qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support

On Tue, 2024-07-16 at 13:54 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 08.07.24 11:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * Time according to time_type field above.
> > +        */
> > +       uint64_t time_sec;              /* Seconds since time_type epoch */
> > +       uint64_t time_frac_sec;         /* (seconds >> 64) */
> > +       uint64_t time_esterror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */
> > +       uint64_t time_maxerror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */
> 
> Is this unsigned or signed?

The field itself is unsigned, as it provides the absolute value of the
error (which can be in either direction). Probably better just to drop
the ± from the comment.

Julien is now back from vacation and I'm expecting to see his opinion
on whether we can change that to nanoseconds for consistency.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)