linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls

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:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:46:34 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
 
> 3. I was also aiming for user pointers to be not touched by timer
> specific code as it can get messy if not handled properly with 2
> compat time_t versions.

So have one helper that deals with all copyout and have it used by
all of them.  IMO all that code should treat userland representation
as completely opaque.  Just switch nanosleep_copyout() to take
timespec64 instead of timespec (for kernel-side object) and that'll
do it, wouldn't it?

> Do you guys see any benefit in doing it the way patch 4/8 in the
> current series does?

Well, if you want to keep more restart functions and more boilerplate
on compat side...