linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready

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 14:57:26 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	john.stultz@...aro.org, hch@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, lftan@...era.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com, coda@...cmu.edu,
	codalist@...emann.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	logfs@...fs.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready

On 06/02/2014 12:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> The bit that is really going to hurt is every single ioctl that uses a
>> timespec.
>>
>> Honestly, though, I really don't understand the point with "struct
>> inode_time".  It seems like the zeroeth-order thing is to change the
>> kernel internal version of struct timespec to have a 64-bit time... it
>> isn't just about inodes.  We then should be explicit about the external
>> uses of time, and use accessors.
> 
> I picked these because they are fairly isolated from all other uses,
> in particular since inode times are the only things where we really
> care about times in the distant past or future (decades away as opposed
> to things that happened between boot and shutdown).
> 

If nothing else, I would expect to be able to set the system time to
weird values for testing.  So I'm not so sure I agree with that...

> For other kernel-internal uses, we may be better off migrating to
> a completely different representation, such as nanoseconds since
> boot or the architecture specific ktime_t, but this is really something
> to decide for each subsystem.

Having a bunch of different time representations in the kernel seems
like a real headache...

	-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/