Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > The big deal is that a build *with* KERNEL_PLL will generate adjtimex(2)
> > events into the capture logs. A build without KERNEL_PLL won't. Neither
> > kind of log will be replayable on the other kind of build.
>
> I don't have time to help with this now.
>
> I think you should keep working on TESTFRAME. At worst, we'll end up with a
> Linux only version. We'll probably learn more.
Alas, *I* think that pouring more effort into TESTFRAME looks at this point
like a losing proposition. More visibility into what ntpd is doing we
can get with conventional logging. Since we can't make replay work portably,
the capture side loses its point
I hope we'll get to re-use this work someday, but in order to do that
we need to remove the blocker -- by, for example, getting the userspace
PLL to converge fast enough that we can simply stop using adjtimex(2)
> Part of the problem is that we have a word tangle between my use of "kernel
> PLL" and your use of "KERNEL_PLL". I was referring to the PLL option in the
> Linux kernel that gets included when you say:
> CONFIG_NTP_PPS=y
I see from replies that you and Gary are arguing about this. I don't need
or want to be in that argument. I have other things I need to do, like
landing Daniel's rewrite of the protocol machine.
My request for you two is this: Work out some terminology that you can
agree on, inventing new terms if required (they can be "Fred" and
"Barney" for all I care). Apply it to the tour document. Then use it
so nobody gets confused, and I will too.
(This is a major reason why I write things like the tour document in
the first place - to learn when people are talking past each other
and give them a way to stop doing that.)
> I have access to Linux, NetBSD, and FreeBSD. ntpd runs on all 3 and does
> essentially the same thing. The key ideas are being able to adjust the clock
> "drift" and being able to slew the clock.
>
> I'll bet other major OSes have similar ideas.
Of course they do. I can figure that much out even with my relatively
poor domain knowledge.
> You said "adjtimex". There is also ntp_adjtime. It's available on Linux,
> NetBSD, and FreeBSD. It's covered in RFC 1589.
I'm aware of it. It's described in the new section.
> The sandbox stuff knows about adjtimex but not ntp_adjtime, so I think we are
> using the wrong API. There is either a good reason or a bug in the build
> system.
There's a good reason. Under Linux, ntp_adjtime(2) is implemented as a thin
userspace wrapper around adjtimex(2). The seccomp logic doesn't have to know
about the former.
> How well does it work if you build to use ntp_adjtime? Does that do
> something silly like kill using the kernel PPS time stamping?
No. Gary has done this and reported on it.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
