On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Stephen Satchell <l...@satchell.net> wrote:
> On 03/07/2018 07:43 AM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > >> So the question is, is this "so bad" that we should not fall back by >> default. >> Or is this a minor degradation and the comfort for the NTP server >> component >> to just work outweighs the concern. >> > > > Doing a fallback without some kind of notice is just plain wrong. Being > silent is just wrong. > > Now, if you were to make a local mail to root that you have to fall back, > that would be sufficient enough to eliminate the "astonishment factor." > > how about -x1 for saying "die on failure", and -x or -x0 for "fallback on > failure"? Or some other option? Yes, this would follow my suggestion of controlling this particular behavior via a command-line option in case it is not generally appealing (but would have cases user want it). I also found that there are further container special cases (very awkward to me) that could lead to CAP_SYS_TIME being available, but still not effectively usable when applied to the kernel namespace eventually. I'll try to come up with a v2 including both (option to select fallback behavior and a check for actual doability of the adjtime), but I'm not sure how to perfectly test the latter yet. > -- > To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org with > "unsubscribe" in the subject. > For help email chrony-dev-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org with "help" in the > subject. > Trouble? Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org. > > -- Christian Ehrhardt Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd
