[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160419195946.GB32382@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:59:46 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
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()
Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@...omium.org):
> 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.
Sorry for the delayed response - sounds good to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists