linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/12] [RFC] can: avoid using timeval for uapi

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: <6130832.516TFPqmA3@wuerfel>
Date:	Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:18:08 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	y2038@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] [RFC] can: avoid using timeval for uapi

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 11:05:32 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 10:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 05 October 2015 20:51:08 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >>
> >> I double checked some (more) BCM applications I have access to.
> >>
> >> E.g. https://github.com/linux-can/can-tests
> >>
> >> When you do a 'git grep ival1' there you get something like
> >>
> >> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = 1;
> >> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = 0;
> >> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = 0;
> >> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = 0;
> >> tst-bcm-dump.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec       = timeout / 1000000;
> >> tst-bcm-dump.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec      = timeout % 1000000;
> >> (..)
> >>
> >> So the usual way to assign values to ival1 and ival2 is NOT to assign an
> >> existing struct timeval but to directly assign its tv_[u]sec elements.
> > 
> > Ok, very good.
> > 
> >> I applied your bcm.h changes to my local can-tests tree and it compiles
> >> without any problems - as expected. I don't see any serious drawback with your
> >> idea. I wonder whether developers would ever notice this change ...
> >>
> >>> We could address problem a) by using '__u32' or 'int' members
> >>> rather than 'long', but that would have a more significant
> >>> downside in also breaking support for all existing 64-bit user
> >>> binaries that might be using this interface, which is likely
> >>> not acceptable.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >>> Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
> >>
> >> Thanks for your good suggestion to make the BCM API y2038 proof!
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > What is the normal path for CAN patches? Should I resend with your
> > Ack and without the RFC for Marc to pick it up?
> 
> You can add my:
> 
> Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
> 
> add upstream the 2038 fixes as a block.

Davem already picked up the first 10 of the series. If you don't
mind, I'd prefer if you could take this one into your tree so I
have it off my list.
I have 200 other patches in various states and more getting added.

	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/