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]

Date:	Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:52:13 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	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

On Monday 02 June 2014 07:57:37 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:56:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 
> > I think you misunderstood what I suggested: the intent is to avoid
> > seeing things break in 2038 by making them break much earlier. We have
> > a solution for ext2 file systems, it's called ext4, and we just need
> > to ensure that everybody knows they have to migrate eventually.
> > 
> > At some point before the mid 2030ies, you should no longer be able to
> > build a kernel that has support for ext2 or any other module that will
> > run into bugs later....
> 
> Even for ext4, it's not quite so simple as that.  You only have
> support for times post 2038 if you are using an inode size > 128
> bytes.  There are a very, very large number of machines which even
> today, are using 128 byte inodes with ext4 for performance reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of those machines which I know of can probably move
> to 256 byte inodes relatively easily, since hard drive replacement
> cycles are order 5-6 years tops, so I'm not that concerned, but it
> just goes to show this is a very complicated problem.

One stupid question about the current code:

static inline void ext4_decode_extra_time(struct inode_time *time, __le32 extra)
{                               
       if (sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4)
               time->tv_sec |= (__u64)(le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK)
                               << 32;
       time->tv_nsec = (le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK) >> EXT4_EPOCH_BITS;
}       

#define EXT4_EINODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, einode, raw_inode)                        \
do {                                                                           \
        if (EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(raw_inode, einode, xtime))                      \
                (einode)->xtime.tv_sec =                                       \
                        (signed)le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)->xtime);               \
        else                                                                   \
                (einode)->xtime.tv_sec = 0;                                    \
        if (EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(raw_inode, einode, xtime ## _extra))            \
                ext4_decode_extra_time(&(einode)->xtime,                       \
                                       raw_inode->xtime ## _extra);            \
        else                                                                   \
                (einode)->xtime.tv_nsec = 0;                                   \
} while (0)

For a time between 2038 and 2106, this looks like xtime.tv_sec is
negative when ext4_decode_extra_time gets called, so the '|=' operator
doesn't actually do anything. Shouldn't that be '+='?

	Arnd
--
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/