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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 08:54:28 -0700 From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, y2038@...ts.linaro.org, Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] time: Add missing implementation for timespec64_add_safe() Wanted to add a note here: > + * Add two timespec64 values and do a safety check for overflow. > + * It's assumed that both values are valid (>= 0). > + * And, each timespec64 is in normalized form. > + */ > +struct timespec64 timespec64_add_safe(const struct timespec64 lhs, > + const struct timespec64 rhs) > +{ > + struct timespec64 res; > + > + set_normalized_timespec64(&res, lhs.tv_sec + rhs.tv_sec, > + lhs.tv_nsec + rhs.tv_nsec); > + > + if (unlikely(res.tv_sec < lhs.tv_sec || res.tv_sec < rhs.tv_sec)) { This check can be reduced to only the first condition if we assume the timespecs passed in to be normalized. The current patch maintains the way timespec_add_safe() does it for consistency. -Deepa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists