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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:52:05 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com> 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 Thursday 08 October 2015 08:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > 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. Ok, I can see that as an improvement, but it still seems to give a false sense of safety, and I feel we really should not have any code rely on this behavior. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists