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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180412150349.3dgkgqx4ged6t4ng@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:03:49 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        vinicius.gomes@...el.com, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
        henrik@...tad.us, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        levi.pearson@...man.com, edumazet@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
        mlichvar@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 net-next 13/18] net/sched: Introduce the TBS Qdisc

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 04:38:44PM -0700, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> Just breaking this down a bit, yes, TAI is the network time base, and the NICs
> PTP clock use that because PTP is (commonly) based on TAI. After the PHCs have
> been synchronized over the network (e.g. with ptp4l), my understanding is that
> if applications want to use the clockid_t CLOCK_TAI as a network clock reference
> it's required that something (i.e. phc2sys) is synchronizing the PHCs and the
> system clock, and also that something calls adjtime to apply the TAI vs UTC
> offset to CLOCK_TAI.

Yes.  I haven't seen any distro that sets the TAI-UTC offset after
boot, nor are there any user space tools for this.  The kernel is
ready, though.

> I was thinking about the full offload use-cases, thus when no scheduling is
> happening inside the qdiscs. Applications could just read the time from the PHC
> clocks directly without having to rely on any of the above. On this case,
> userspace would use DYNAMIC_CLOCK just to flag that this is the case, but I must
> admit it's not clear to me how common of a use-case that is, or even if it makes
> sense.

1588 allows only two timescales, TAI and ARB-itrary.  Although it
doesn't make too much sense to use ARB, still people will do strange
things.  Probably some people use UTC.  I am not advocating supporting
alternate timescales, just pointing out the possibility.

Thanks,
Richard

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ