linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info available

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <17597.1463568902@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 11:55:02 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info available

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

> I'm trying to understand what that means for the 64-bit time_t syscalls.
> 
> The patch series I did last year had a replacement 'sys_newfstatat()'
> syscall but IIRC no other stat variant, the idea being that we would
> only need to provide this one to the libc and have user space emulate
> the stat/fstat/lstat/fstatat variants based on that.
> With the statx introduction, I was hoping to no longer have to add
> that syscall but instead have libc do everything on top of sys_statx().
> 
> Do you think that is reasonable, given that we won't be allowed to
> call any of the existing stat() variants for a y2038-safe libc build[1],
> or should we plan to keep needing replacement fstatat (and possibly
> stat/lstat/fstat) syscalls with 64-bit time_t even after statx() support
> is merged into the kernel.

Christoph?