linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [RFC 02/15] vfs: Change all structures to support 64 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]

Message-ID: <4660520.3fofykfu9a@wuerfel>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:56:42 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [RFC 02/15] vfs: Change all structures to support 64 bit time

On Sunday 17 January 2016 22:09:26 Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> Based on the discussion, here is how I propose to proceed:
> 
> 1. Series for timestamp range check and clamping
> 2. Bug fixing patches like change all CURRENT_TIME use cases to 
> current_fs_time()
> 3. Patches for vfs to use timespec64 internally (maybe a series, if 
> required)
> 4. Patches that change all fs that use vfs APIs using timestamp arguments
> (not a series)
> 5. Change individual fs to use timespec64 (not a series)
> 6. Change back whatever time conversion APIs left in vfs or individual fs 
> (maybe a series, if required)
> 
> So, I don't see a need for submitting another series as all the changes now 
> are handled on a case by case basis and no longer have a generic theme.
> 
> If everyone's in sync then I can proceed with the above plan.

Sounds good to me. Step 3 of course is the hard one, and you may run into
further problems with it, as we both have in our previous attempts to
crack this nut, but with step 2 before it that may become manageable.

	Arnd