linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 19/24] fnic: Use time64

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: <CABeXuvqUWcUEbbyO6K1y4ydw_-KFsPOdWgH5g1z61Pd=EXNnag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:51:21 -0700
From:	Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Hiral Patel <hiralpat@...co.com>,
	Suma Ramars <sramars@...co.com>,
	Brian Uchino <buchino@...co.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/24] fnic: Use time64_t to represent trace timestamps

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2016 5:27:18 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> trace timestamps use struct timespec and CURRENT_TIME which
>> are not y2038 safe.
>> These timestamps are only part of the trace log on the machine
>> and are not shared with the fnic.
>> Replace then with y2038 safe struct timespec64 and
>> ktime_get_real_ts64(), respectively.
>>
>> Note that change to add time64_to_tm() is already part of John's
>> kernel tree: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/17/875 .
>>
>
> While the patch looks good, I think it can't be part of this
> series now, since it has to go on top of that first patch,
> rather than merged in parallel.

Oh, I didn't realize we could merge these in parallel.
I thought the time64_to_tm() had to go in first.

> When you send a pull request, please leave it out and submit
> this one separately after 4.8-rc1.

Will do.

Thanks,
Deepa