linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/21] fs: nfs: Make nfs boot time y2038 safe

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: <d135d52c-be6d-8d89-a619-03210774ec42@Netapp.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:12:55 -0400
From:	Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>
To:	Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>
CC:	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"y2038@...ts.linaro.org" <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/21] fs: nfs: Make nfs boot time y2038 safe

On 06/09/2016 05:10 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>>> boot_time is represented as a struct timespec.
>>> struct timespec and CURRENT_TIME are not y2038 safe.
>>> Overall, the plan is to use timespec64 for all internal
>>> kernel representation of timestamps.
>>> CURRENT_TIME will also be removed.
>>> Use struct timespec64 to represent boot_time.
>>> And, ktime_get_real_ts64() for the boot_time value.
>>>
>>> boot_time is used to construct the nfs client boot verifier.
>>> This will now wrap in 2106 instead of 2038 on 32-bit systems.
>>> The server only relies on the value being persistent until
>>> reboot so the wrapping should be fine.
>>
>> We really do not give a damn about wraparound here, since the boot time is
>> only ever compared for an exact match, and the odds of two reboots occurring
>> exactly 2^32 * 10^9 nanoseconds apart are cosmically small...
>> If struct timespec is going away, can we just convert this into a ktime_t?
> 
> timespec64 is the same as timespec already on 64 bit machines.
> But, yes, we can use ktime_t here.
> 
> Did you mean the internal storage value or the wire boo_time used for verifier?
> In case you don't want to change the wire value, then we will have a division
> operation, every time the verifier needs to be sent.

The verifier is mostly used during mounting, so we don't send too many of them.  I don't think we need to worry about adding an extra division operation here, they're pretty cheap compared to making RPC calls! :)

Anna

> 
> -Deepa
> 
> -Deepa
>