netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/5] net: fec: initialize clock with 0 rather than current kernel time

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: <20200708111109.GE9080@hoboy>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 04:11:09 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Sergey Organov <sorganov@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH  3/5] net: fec: initialize clock with 0 rather than
 current kernel time

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:43:29PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> And overall, my argument is: you are making a user-visible change, for
> basically no strong reason, other than the fact that you like zero
> better. You're trying to reduce confusion, not increase it, right?

;^)
 
> I agree with the basic fact that zero is a simpler and more consistent
> value to initialize a PHC with, than the system time. As I've already
> shown to you, I even attempted to make a similar change to the ptp_qoriq
> driver which was rejected. So I hoped that you could bring some better
> arguments than "I believe 0 is simpler". Since no value is right, no
> value is wrong either, so why make a change in the first place? The only
> value in _changing_ to zero would be if all drivers were changed to use
> it consistently, IMO.

Right.

I would not appose making all PHCs start with zero.  If you feel
strongly about starting all PHCs at zero, please prepare a patch set
and get the ACKs of the appropriate driver maintainers.

(The effort seems pointless to me because the user needs to consult
the synchronization flags in any case.)

Thanks,
Richard