linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

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]

Message-ID: <46313F99.6080402@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:11:05 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:49:05 -0400 Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the tv_nsec value of either of the elements of the utimes parameter to utimensat() is UTIME_OMIT no update of that respective value is performed.
> 
> ITYM "If the value of either of the elements..."
> 
> +#define UTIME_NOW	((1l << 30) - 1l)
> +#define UTIME_OMIT	((1l << 30) - 2l)
> 
> OK, so there's no collision on ts_nsec if unnormalised timespecs are
> disallowed.
> 
> But there's a potential collision on ts_sec?  Do we know what date that
> corresponds to?

"If the tv_nsec value" implies that these magic numbers have no impact
on these.

I'm a bit leery of abusing the timespec value like this, though.  A
flags field seem like it would be cleaner.

Something else... if we're dickering with these interfaces, shouldn't we
allow setting atime as well?

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/