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 13:52:05 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
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 12:46 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that would work.
If that is preferred, then I will just do that and rebase the patches.

>> 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...

Yes, there is no good way of achieving everything because of backward
compatibility.

Thanks,
Deepa