WG: Need for HW-clock independent timestamps

[reiner otto]

+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 <neumann at cgws.de> schrieb am Mo, 21.5.2018:

 Betreff: Re: WG: Need for HW-clock independent timestamps
 An: wireguard at lists.zx2c4.com
 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
 > WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
 > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
 >
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 WireGuard mailing list
 WireGuard at lists.zx2c4.com
 https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard