linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firewire: nosy: Replace timeval with timespec64

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: <3575481.G5vcZLmfxK@wuerfel>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:36 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Tina Ruchandani <ruchandani.tina@...il.com>,
	y2038@...ts.linaro.org, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firewire: nosy: Replace timeval with timespec64

On Monday 21 March 2016 21:19:17 Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Mar 21 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 22:59:11 Tina Ruchandani wrote:
> > > 'struct timeval' uses a 32 bit field for its 'seconds' value which
> > > will overflow in year 2038 and beyond. This patch replaces the use
> > > of timeval in nosy.c with timespec64 which doesn't suffer from y2038
> > > issue. The code is correct as is - since it is only using the
> > > microseconds portion of timeval. However, this patch does the
> > > replacement as part of a larger effort to remove all instances of
> > > 'struct timeval' from the kernel (that would help identify cases
> > > where the code is actually broken).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tina Ruchandani <ruchandani.tina@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/firewire/nosy.c | 8 +++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)  
> > 
> > The patch looks correct to me, but it seems the same one has
> > just been merged into mainline Linux on Saturday (the patch
> > was posted back in October).
> > 
> > commit 2ae4b6b20e2004dccf80d804ae52b073377c2f5b
> [...]
> 
> No, Amitoj's patch from October changed nosy.c::packet_irq_hander, whereas
> Tina' patch changes nosy.c::bus_reset_irq_handler.  IOW the new patch
> completes what the former patch (and us reviewers) missed.
> 

Ah, I see. Sorry for my confusion.

Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>