netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] dpll: add clock quality level attribute and op

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: <ZyDafILiX4bFEfBI@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:52:12 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, donald.hunter@...il.com,
	vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com,
	saeedm@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org, tariqt@...dia.com,
	maciejm@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] dpll: add clock quality level attribute
 and op

Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 06:14:03PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:19:57 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Not sure what do you mean by "clock info". Dpll device and clock is kind
>> >> of the same thing. The dpll device is identified by clock-id. I see no
>> >> other attributes on the way this direction to more extend dpll attr
>> >> namespace.  
>> >
>> >I'm not an expert but I think the standard definition of a DPLL
>> >does not include a built-in oscillator, if that's what you mean.  
>> 
>> Okay. Then the clock-id we have also does not make much sense.
>> Anyway, what is your desire exactly? Do you want to have a nest attr
>> clock-info to contain this quality-level attr? Or something else?
>
>I thought clock-id is basically clockid_t, IOW a reference.
>I wish that the information about timekeepers was exposed 
>by the time subsystem rather than DPLL. Something like clock_getres().

Hmm. From what I understand, the quality of the clock as it is defined
by the ITU standard is an attribute of the DPLL device. DPLL device
in our model is basically a board, which might combine oscillator,
synchronizer and possibly other devices. The clock quality is determined
by this combination and I understand that the ITU certification is also
applied to this device.

That's why it makes sense to have the clock quality as the DPLL
attribute. Makes sense?