linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2] [media] dvb-frontend: Replace timeval with ktime

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <287053272.pKmVI1JmAO@wuerfel>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 16:06:39 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Cc:	Tina Ruchandani <ruchandani.tina@...il.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>,
	Akihiro Tsukada <tskd08@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2] [media] dvb-frontend: Replace timeval with ktime_t

On Tuesday 19 May 2015 13:52:10 Tina Ruchandani wrote:
> struct timeval uses a 32-bit seconds representation which will
> overflow in the year 2038 and beyond. This patch replaces
> the usage of struct timeval with ktime_t which is a 64-bit
> timestamp and is year 2038 safe.
> This patch is part of a larger attempt to remove all instances
> of 32-bit timekeeping variables (timeval, timespec, time_t)
> which are not year 2038 safe, from the kernel.

Ok.

> The patch is a work-in-progress - correctness of the following
> changes is unclear:
> (a) Usage of timeval_usec_diff - The function seems to subtract
> usec values without caring about the difference of the seconds field.
> There may be an implicit assumption in the original code that the
> time delta is always of the order of microseconds.
> The patch replaces the usage of timeval_usec_diff with
> ktime_to_us(ktime_sub()) which computes the real timestamp difference,
> not just the difference in the usec field.

Yes, I'm sure this is a safe assumption.

When you change the code to ktime_us_delta, please also update the
comment here.

> (b) printk diffing the tv[i] and tv[i-1] values. The original
> printk statement seems to get the order wrong. This patch preserves
> that order.

I also think that's ok, but it would be nice to split this out
as a separate patch that gets applied first, so just swap out the
arguments in the timeval_usec_diff() definition as preparation
and add an explanation why you think it was wrong.

> @@ -2489,7 +2469,7 @@ static int dvb_frontend_ioctl_legacy(struct file *file,
>  				printk("%s(%d): switch delay (should be 32k followed by all 8k\n",
>  					__func__, fe->dvb->num);
>  				for (i = 1; i < 10; i++)
> -					printk("%d: %d\n", i, timeval_usec_diff(tv[i-1] , tv[i]));
> +					printk("%d: %d\n", i, (int) ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(tv[i-1], tv[i])));

This can still be simplified using ktime_us_delta().

>  			stv0299_writeregI (state, 0x0c, reg0x0c | (last ? lv_mask : 0x50));
> @@ -443,7 +444,7 @@ static int stv0299_send_legacy_dish_cmd (struct dvb_frontend* fe, unsigned long
>  		printk ("%s(%d): switch delay (should be 32k followed by all 8k\n",
>  			__func__, fe->dvb->num);
>  		for (i = 1; i < 10; i++)
> -			printk ("%d: %d\n", i, timeval_usec_diff(tv[i-1] , tv[i]));
> +			printk("%d: %d\n", i, (int) ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(tv[i-1], tv[i])));
>  	}

This, too.

The patch looks correct to me now, so just do the cosmetic changes I
suggested above and submit a version 3.

	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/