linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubifs: use timespec64 for inode timestamps

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, 02 Jul 2018 16:20:04 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        y2038@...ts.linaro.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Hyunchul Lee <cheol.lee@....com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: use timespec64 for inode timestamps

Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2018, 10:12:58 CEST schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> Both vfs and the on-disk inode structures can deal with fine-grained
> timestamps now, so this is the last missing piece to make ubifs
> y2038-safe on 32-bit architectures.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
>  fs/ubifs/file.c | 11 +++++------
>  fs/ubifs/sb.c   |  6 +++---
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c
> index fd7eb6fe9090..02fab5c322c7 100644
> --- a/fs/ubifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c
> @@ -1365,11 +1365,10 @@ int ubifs_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync)
>   * granularity, they are not updated. This is an optimization.
>   */
>  static inline int mctime_update_needed(const struct inode *inode,
> -				       const struct timespec *now)
> +				       const struct timespec64 *now)
>  {
> -	struct timespec64 now64 = timespec_to_timespec64(*now);
> -	if (!timespec64_equal(&inode->i_mtime, &now64) ||
> -	    !timespec64_equal(&inode->i_ctime, &now64))
> +	if (!timespec64_equal(&inode->i_mtime, now) ||
> +	    !timespec64_equal(&inode->i_ctime, now))
>  		return 1;
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -1425,7 +1424,7 @@ int ubifs_update_time(struct inode *inode, struct timespec64 *time,
>   */
>  static int update_mctime(struct inode *inode)
>  {
> -	struct timespec now = timespec64_to_timespec(current_time(inode));
> +	struct timespec64 now = current_time(inode);
>  	struct ubifs_inode *ui = ubifs_inode(inode);
>  	struct ubifs_info *c = inode->i_sb->s_fs_info;
>  
> @@ -1519,7 +1518,7 @@ static vm_fault_t ubifs_vm_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  	struct page *page = vmf->page;
>  	struct inode *inode = file_inode(vmf->vma->vm_file);
>  	struct ubifs_info *c = inode->i_sb->s_fs_info;
> -	struct timespec now = timespec64_to_timespec(current_time(inode));
> +	struct timespec64 now = current_time(inode);
>  	struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_page = 1 };
>  	int err, update_time;
>  
> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/sb.c b/fs/ubifs/sb.c
> index 8c25081a5109..fa0a982a6797 100644
> --- a/fs/ubifs/sb.c
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/sb.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int create_default_filesystem(struct ubifs_info *c)
>  	long long tmp64, main_bytes;
>  	__le64 tmp_le64;
>  	__le32 tmp_le32;
> -	struct timespec ts;
> +	struct timespec64 ts;
>  
>  	/* Some functions called from here depend on the @c->key_len filed */
>  	c->key_len = UBIFS_SK_LEN;
> @@ -301,8 +301,8 @@ static int create_default_filesystem(struct ubifs_info *c)
>  	ino->creat_sqnum = cpu_to_le64(++c->max_sqnum);
>  	ino->nlink = cpu_to_le32(2);
>  
> -	ktime_get_real_ts(&ts);
> -	ts = timespec_trunc(ts, DEFAULT_TIME_GRAN);
> +	ktime_get_real_ts64(&ts);
> +	ts = timespec64_trunc(ts, DEFAULT_TIME_GRAN);
>  	tmp_le64 = cpu_to_le64(ts.tv_sec);
>  	ino->atime_sec   = tmp_le64;
>  	ino->ctime_sec   = tmp_le64;

Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>

Shall this patch go through the ubifs tree?

Thanks,
//richard