netdev - Re: [RFC] Defining a home/maintenance model for non-NIC PHC devices using the /dev/ptpX API

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: <2a4c9a00-45f5-4f6a-90c4-492ea1d50b79@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 17:16:06 +0800
From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, Nick Shi <nick.shi@...adcom.com>,
 Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Defining a home/maintenance model for non-NIC PHC devices
 using the /dev/ptpX API

On 2026/1/13 12:21, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:56:56AM +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
> 
>> Introducing a new clock type or a new userspace API (e.g. /dev/XXX) would
>> require widespread userspace changes, duplicated tooling, and long-term
>> fragmentation. This RFC is explicitly NOT proposing a new userspace API.
> 
> Actually I disagree.
> 
> The PHC devices appear to user space as clockid_t.
> 
> The API for these works seamlessly and interchangeably with SYS-V clock IDs.
> 
> The path that is opened, whether /dev/ptpX or some new /dev/hwclkX etc
> is a trivial detail that adds no burden to user space.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard

Thanks, Richard.

This might be true for applications using the POSIX clock API.
(However in practice there is also an ecosystem aspect: apps
and scripts assume /dev/ptpX explicitly, introducing a new
clock path can still incur real adoption/compatibility costs.)

More importantly, the existing ecosystem also relies on the
ioctl APIs (PTP_* ioctls).

Taking chrony as an example. For PHC refclock, chrony's PHC
handler (RCL_PHC_driver) explicitly relies on PTP ioctls[1],

e.g.,

ioctl(fd, PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE/PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED/PTP_SYS_OFFSET, etc)

So a new clock type and APIs would require non-trivial userspace
changes. That would be a lengthy process of adaptation and tool
availability across different distributions. Similar problems
may also arise in other tools.

That's why this RFC is not proposing new userspace APIs.

[1] https://gitlab.com/chrony/chrony/-/blob/master/refclock_phc.c?ref_type=heads#:~:text=static%20int%20phc_poll,%7D

Regards.