linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use timespec64 for timeout events

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160506.154548.630368691269399992.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 06 May 2016 15:45:48 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	john.stultz@...aro.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
	deepa.kernel@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [RESEND PATCH 2/3] fs: poll/select/recvmmsg: use
 timespec64 for timeout events

From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:01:24 -0700

> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:08:11 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>
>>> > But I'm less comfortable making the call on this one. It looks
>>> > relatively straight forward, but it would be good to have maintainer
>>> > acks before I add it to my tree.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Feel free to add my
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>>
>>> at least (whoever picks it up).
>>
>> In reply to [1/3] John said
>>
>> : Looks ok at the first glance. I've queued these up for testing,
>> : however I only got #1 and #3 of the set. Are you hoping these two
>> : patches will go through tip/timers/core or are you looking for acks so
>> : they can go via another tree?
>>
>> However none of the patches are in linux-next.
>>
>> John had qualms about [2/3], but it looks like a straightforward
>> substitution in areas which will get plenty of testing
> 
> Yea. My main concern is just not stepping on any other maintainers toes.

The networking changes look fine to me:

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>