+1; Not just to consider the "very standard case", which why quality of software nowadays goes down. Although you are correct here, that power cycle is almost normal usage procedure.
-------------------------------------------- Axel Neumann <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo, 21.5.2018: Betreff: Re: WG: Need for HW-clock independent timestamps An: [email protected] Datum: Montag, 21. Mai, 2018 14:52 Uhr On 21.05.2018 13:22, Reto Brunner wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:07:38PM +0200, Axel Neumann wrote: >> entirely superfluous. As discussed earlier [3] it can be achieved with >> essentially one file-system write operation each boot. > > You might as well achieve the same with the timestamp. > Just add a pre-shutdown hook, which touches a file. yes, can be an option, but would only work in "normal" soft-shut-down cases, not in case of a hard reset or power cycle. A not-so-uncommon scenario for embedded home-network devices and community-network deployments. Especially when considering the first choice of a normal user (desperately trying to fix its internet-via-WG tunnel connection): Power cycle the device. /axel > Restore the system clock to this upon boot (which may very well be off > but who cares). > > After the wg tunnel is back up, sync with any NTP server you trust and you > are back up and running. > > What is the advantage of doing it with a counter? > I fail to see the benefit. > _______________________________________________ > WireGuard mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard > _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
