linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RESEND, net-next] xfrm: use time64

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:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:10:30 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RESEND, net-next] xfrm: use time64_t for in-kernel
 timestamps

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:19:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The lifetime managment uses '__u64' timestamps on the user space
> interface, but 'unsigned long' for reading the current time in the kernel
> with get_seconds().
> 
> While this is probably safe beyond y2038, it will still overflow in 2106,
> and the get_seconds() call is deprecated because fo that.
> 
> This changes the xfrm time handling to use time64_t consistently, along
> with reading the time using the safer ktime_get_real_seconds(). It still
> suffers from problems that can happen from a concurrent settimeofday()
> call or (to a lesser degree) a leap second update, but since the time
> stamps are part of the user API, there is nothing we can do to prevent
> that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

Applied to the ipsec-next tree, thanks a lot!