linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2 08/10] fix get_timespec64() for y2038 safe compat interfaces

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:   Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:51:47 +0000
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2 08/10] fix get_timespec64() for y2038 safe
 compat interfaces

On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 13:02 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> - I had an idea to handle the copying of timespec/timeval with a
> one-size-fits-all
>   function and multiple wrappers around it, such as
> 
> enum user_ts_type {
>       USER_TS_TIMEVAL = 1,
>       USER_TS_32 = 2,
>       USER_TS_CLEARNSEC = 4,
>       USER_TS_NOCHECK = 8,
> };
[...]
> While working on the driver patches I encountered lots of different
> combinations of
> those that might be interesting here, so we could have wrappers for
> the most common
> ones and call get_timestruct() and put_timestruct() directly for the
> less common
> variations. Am I taking it too far here, or would that make sense?

I don't think I've reviewed enough time-handling stuff to know, but I
can certainly believe that this could be worth doing.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.