linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] 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, 26 Jun 2017 21:58:34 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        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>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls

>>>> The series aims at isolating data conversions of time_t based structures:
>>>> struct timespec and struct itimerspec at user space boundaries.
>>>> This helps to later change the underlying types to handle y2038 changes
>>>> to these.
>>>
>>> Nice...  A few questions:
>>>
>>> * what about setitimer(2)?  Right now that's the only remaining user of
>>> get_compat_itimerval(); similar for getitimer(2) and put_compat_itimerval().
>>
>> We do not plan to support these beyond y2038 on 32 bit systems.
>> timer_settime() and timer_gettime() are considered to be replacements
>> for these, respectively.
>>
>> There is also going to be a cleanup of timeval/ timespec/ time_t data
>> types and apis after the new syscalls are ready.
>> At that time I might choose to get rid of these itimerval apis. I'm
>> not sure yet.
>
> I see that internally, alarm/getitimer/setitimer all use ktime_t, so
> one possible solution would be to push down the use of ktime_t
> into the callers and do both the conversion and range check in the
> user copy function.

Right. This is one way of doing it. I was asking if you guys are okay
with doing this as a cleanup series later or would you like for it to
be part of the current series?

-Deepa