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

Reply via email to