linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: use 64-bit timestamps for struct btrfs_dev_replace

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:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:15:49 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Allen Pais <allen.lkml@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: use 64-bit timestamps for struct btrfs_dev_replace_item

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:36 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:34:33PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The structure already has 64-bit fields for the timestamps, but
>> calling get_seconds() may truncate and risk overflow on 32-bit
>> architectures.
>>
>> This changes the dev-replace code to use ktime_get_real_seconds()
>> instead, which always returns 64-bit timestamps.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> Thanks but there's a patch already fixng that, sent a few days ago
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10473195/
>
> and added to patch queue for the next dev cycle as it does not appear to
> urgent for 4.18.

Ok, sounds good.
I had missed that Allen has independently sent out some of the
same patches that I created in the last weeks.

Allen, do you have more patches pending? I have sent out most of what
I did (around 80 patches I think), with just ext4, ceph, nfs and xfs pending
at the moment. It seems we also sent identical patches for procfs and
I have something pending for ceph that duplicates another patch you did.

      Arnd