linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 11/32] xfs: convert to struct inode

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: <c7770275-61de-4e94-9586-5ee118f77ba5@email.android.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2014 18:22:55 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, joseph@...esourcery.com,
	john.stultz@...aro.org, hch@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, lftan@...era.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/32] xfs: convert to struct inode_time

No, not a strawman.  Replace with Jan 26, 2038 and you have the same situation.

On May 30, 2014 6:14:50 PM PDT, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:41:14PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/30/2014 05:37 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > 
>> > IOWs, the filesystem has to be able to reject any attempt to set a
>> > timestamp that is can't represent on disk otherwise Bad Stuff will
>> > happen,
>> 
>> Actually it is questionable if it is worse to reject a timestamp or
>just
>> let it wrap.  Rejecting a valid timestamp is a bit like "You don't
>> exist, go away."
>
>I think having the new systems calls being able to
>return EINVAL if the value cannot be stored permanently on disk
>correctly is the right thing to do. Having it silently mangled
>by the filesystem and returning "everything is just fine, trust me"
>is close to the worst solution I can think of. That's exactly what
>leads to overflow bugs occurring....
>
>> > and filesystems have to be able to specify in their on
>> > disk format what timestamp encoding is being used. The solution
>will
>> > be different for every filesystem that needs to support time beyond
>> > 2038.
>> 
>> Actually the cutoff can be really different for each filesystem, not
>> necessarily 2038.  However, I maintain the above still holds.
>
>Sure, but all filesystems are supposed to handle at least the
>current unix epoch.
>
>> Consider a filesystem that kept timestamps in YYMMDDHHMMSS format. 
>What
>> would you have expected such a filesystem to do on Jan 1, 2000?
>
>Strawman.
>
>We don't need to cater for fundamentally broken designs that can't
>even handle the current unix epoch correctly. If such filesystems
>exist, then they can simple say "original unix epoch support only"
>and do whatever crap they are doing right now.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/