linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/21] time: Add time64_to

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:59:06 -0700
From:	Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/21] time: Add time64_to_tm()

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:52 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:18 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> time_to_tm() takes time_t as an argument.
>>>> time_t is not y2038 safe.
>>>> Add time64_to_tm() that takes time64_t as an argument
>>>> which is y2038 safe.
>>>> The plan is to eventually replace all calls to time_to_tm()
>>>> by time64_to_tm().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
>>>> Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>>>
>>> This looks sane to me. Are you hoping for me to queue this, or would
>>> you like i to go though the fsdev maintainers with my ack?
>>>
>>> In either case.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
>>
>> This is only used by the scsi fnic driver.
>> I will separate these 2 patches from this CURRENT_TIME series and
>> then both the patches can be merged through the respective trees.
>
> Sorry, this was not quite clear. I've gone ahead and queued this one
> patch for testing, but let me know and I'll drop it if its going
> through a different tree.

Ok.This works too.

Thanks,
Deepa