linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Limit system time to prevent 32-bit time

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:	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:23:44 +0200
From:	Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Limit system time to prevent 32-bit time_t
 overflow

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:10:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 October 2015 16:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Without the limit added by this patch make will go nuts just one week
> > later when the 32-bit time_t overflows to Dec 13 1901 and the files
> > will appear as 136 years in the future. How is that better?
> 
> Not better or worse at all, that was my point. The time is still
> wrong either way, whether you step back by a week or 136 years.

The difference is that with the one-week step the kernel and userspace
still agree on the current time and it is always valid from the kernel
point of view, absolute timers can be set, etc.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar
--
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/