linux-kernel - Re: x86, x32: Correct invalid use of user timespec in the kernel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFwcgGPb=5cTnkKpP4vH2kqCCvxGteZT58efHhg3aJjcfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:45:51 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86, x32: Correct invalid use of user timespec in the kernel

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> My feeling is that {get,put}_compat_timespec() should at the very least
> have leading underscores to flag it as a low-level function, but better
> suggestions would be appreciated.

Why not just remove it entirely, and change all users to
compat_[get|set]_timespec (same for timeval etc, of course).

After all, compat_*_time*() does fall back cleanly for non-x32 cases.
And sure, maybe that particular code is never *needed* for x32
support, but the overhead is generally zero (since in most cases X32
isn't even configured), or very low anyway. So the upside of having
two subtly incompatible interfaces is very dubious, no?

                Linus
--
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/