[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25528989.ZvcD3CdaC6@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:01:33 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc: serge.hallyn@...onical.com, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
serge@...lyn.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
pmoore@...hat.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, keescook@...omium.org,
john.johansen@...onical.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
agruenba@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, neilb@...e.de,
jann@...jh.net, broonie@...nel.org, christopher.s.hall@...el.com,
pang.xunlei@...aro.org, harald@...ib.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64()
On Friday 08 April 2016 14:02:11 Baolin Wang wrote:
> security_settime() uses a timespec, which is not year 2038 safe
> on 32bit systems. Thus this patch introduces the security_settime64()
> function with timespec64 type. We also convert the cap_settime() helper
> function to use the 64bit types.
>
> Move the security_settime() to the head file as a inline function for
> removing that inline helper when following up patches are fixed the
> call sites.
>
> None of the existing hooks is using the timespec argument and therefor
> the patch is not doing any functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
I seem to have only received patches 3 and 4, both on my personal
address and on lkml. Any idea what happened?
Unless you did not mean to send these patches at all, could you resend
the entire series and put me and the y2038 list on cc to all of the
patches?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists