On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:10:08PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: >On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:49:35PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> The problem is that I don't think there's a good solution to both >> problems here. We can't *know* that the system time has been read from >> fake-hwclock.data before calling "save". I briefly considered adding a >> "I've seen this" flag that could be set in "load", but that's no >> guarantee at all - if we power down unexpectedly then it'll be set >> already at next boot. > >Could you leave something in /run that notes that load has been called? >Or is /run not available at the right time for that? > >> What we *can* do is instead add an extra declaration of system time >> based on the build/release date of the particular version of the >> fake-hwclock package in use, and refuse to back to a date before >> *that* unless --force is used. How does that sound? > >That would work for my use case, I think. Since in my failure case the >time ends up right back near the epoch and nowhere near the present >time.
I'd rather go this way than the /run route, for simplicity. About to add this in a new release. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden
