linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] cputime: Introduce cputime_to_timespec64()/timespec64_to

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:	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:31:23 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, arnd@...db.de, john.stultz@...aro.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	linux390@...ibm.com, rth@...ddle.net, riel@...hat.com,
	cl@...ux.com, tj@...nel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cputime: Introduce
 cputime_to_timespec64()/timespec64_to_cputime()

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:

> The cputime_to_timespec() and timespec_to_cputime() functions are
> not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems due to that the struct timepsec
> will overflow in 2038 year.

And how is this relevant? cputime is not based on wall clock time at
all. So what has 2038 to do with cputime?

We want proper explanations WHY we need such a change.

Thanks,

	tglx


--
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/