linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 02/21] fs: ext4: Use current_fs

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]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:55:39 -0700
From:	Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 02/21] fs: ext4: Use current_fs_time() for inode timestamps

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:45:01 AM CEST Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>> > CURRENT_TIME_SEC and CURRENT_TIME are not y2038 safe.
>> > current_fs_time() will be transitioned to be y2038 safe
>> > along with vfs.
>> >
>> > current_fs_time() returns timestamps according to the
>> > granularities set in the super_block.
>>
>> All existing users and all the ones in this patch (and the others too,
>> although I didn't go through them very carefully) really would prefer
>> just passing in the inode directly, rather than the superblock.
>>
>> So I don't want to add more users of this broken interface.  It was a
>> mistake to use the superblock. The fact that the time granularity
>> exists there is pretty much irrelevant. If every single user wants to
>> use an inode pointer, then that is what the function should get.
>
> I guess it would help to give the function a new name in the process,
> if only to avoid possible conflicts. That new name of course needs to
> be at least as intuitive as the old one. How about
>
> struct timespec fs_timestamp(struct inode *);

Would moving the function to fs/ directory (filesystems.c/ super.c /
inode.c) and calling it current_time() or fs_current_time() make
sense?
The declaration is already part of fs.h.

This is actually a vfs function.
And, the time functions it uses are already exported.
Leaving it in the time.c by renaming to current_time() would be
confusing in spite of
the struct inode* argument.

-Deepa