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: <538CB085.5000502@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:12:37 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	LKML Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, joseph@...esourcery.com,
	john.stultz@...aro.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org, lftan@...era.com,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/32] xfs: convert to struct inode_time

On 06/02/2014 08:31 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> I wonder if it would make sense to try to promulgate via the Austin
> group, and possibly the C standards committee the concept of a bit
> pattern (that might commonly be INT_MAX or UINT_MAX) that means "time
> unknown", or "time indefinite" or "we couldn't encode the time".
> 

(time_t)-1 already has this meaning for some calls (e.g. time(2)).
However, this also means Wed Dec 31 23:59:59 UTC 1969, and unfortunately
something similar applies to all possible bit patterns, certainly within
the range of an int.

> We would then teach gmtime(3) and asctime(3) to print some appropriate
> message, and we could teach programs like find (with the -mtime)
> option, make, tmpwatch, et. al., that they can't make any presumption
> about the comparibility of any timestamp which has a value of
> TIME_UNDEFINIED.
> 
> It would be problematic for time(2) or gettimeofday(2) to return
> TIME_UNDEFINED, since there are programs that care about time ticking
> forward, but I could imagine a new interface which would be permitted
> to return a flag indicating that we don't know the current time
> (because the CMOS battery had run down, etc.) so instead we're going
> to be counting the number of seconds since the system was booted.

This assumes that we actually know that that is the case, which may be
an aggressive assumption.

	-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/