[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ=NYH-LadHo4dGz-sHvUT+Q38Vq9c5TTq7sr4QrUhQDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:04:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>,
Harald Geyer <harald@...ib.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64()
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:54 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> 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>
>
> Hey Baolin,
> If you get an ack, like you did from James, please include it in the
> commit message of following submissions
>
> Serge, Kees: Any objection to this patch going in via the
> tip/timers/core tree with the dependent settimeofday64 call?
No problem from me: makes sense to keep it all together in one tree.
-Kees
>
> Otherwise I'll queue this up for testing.
>
> thanks
> -john
>
>
> .
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists