Update generated dummies for wireguard

[Duss Pirmin]

On 03.07.23 14:55, Christian Helmuth wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 13:50:44 CEST, Duss Pirmin wrote:
>> The new code is much less invasive. I'm currently debugging, why do_settimeofday64() accesses address 0x0.
>> Maybe I'm calling it too early but I think, that I will figure this out.
> 
> Hm, that's unfortunate...

I already have figured out the problem. I had the call of 
do_settimeofday64() in the constructor of the Main object of wireguard.

At this point the kernel isn't initialized. The Linux parts can only be 
started after Main is constructed successfully.

> Did you have a look into
> read_persistent_clock64() (timekeeping.c in Linux)? Maybe this is even
> less invasive than calling do_settimeofday64() as you may just
> implement the function that is defined "weak" in timekeeping.c. The
> related call chain is
> 
>    timekeeping_init()
>    -> read_persistent_wall_and_boot_offset()  -- weak
>    -> read_persistent_clock64                 -- weak

I like this even better. The coupling between the two "worlds" is 
reduced even more.

I'm currently testing and cleaning up the changes. Expect a patch 
incoming shortly.


Regards,
Pirmin