Development discussion of WireGuard
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
To: Jacob Lifshay <>
Subject: Re: why not use ktime_get_clocktai_ts64
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:56:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Jacob,

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 06:48:08PM -0700, Jacob Lifshay wrote:
> I was reading in noise.c and noticed you use ktime_get_real_ts64 and
> do manual adjustments (the current code is broken if/when there's
> another leap second) rather than using ktime_get_clocktai_ts64 which
> already handles compensation for leap seconds.
> Is there a reason for that?

Not really I guess. The only requirement, though, is that the timestamps
are monotonic with respect to the particular localprivate-remotepublic
pairing of peers. So I'm not sure it matters?


  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-17 11:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-16  1:48 Jacob Lifshay
2022-06-17 11:56 ` Jason A. Donenfeld [this message]
2022-06-19  6:16   ` Jacob Lifshay

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: why not use ktime_get_clocktai_ts64' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).