linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] Change k_clock nsleep() to use timespec64

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, 21 Mar 2017 10:16:23 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepadinamani@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] Change k_clock nsleep() to use timespec64

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Deepa Dinamani <deepadinamani@...gle.com>
>
> struct timespec is not y2038 safe. The plan is to
> get rid of all uses of timespec internally in the
> kernel. Replace uses of timespec with timespec64.
> The syscall interfaces themselves will be changed
> in a separate series.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>

It's worth pointing out here that this patch only does half the job:

> index f608941..97a883a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/posix-timers.h
> +++ b/include/linux/posix-timers.h
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ struct k_clock {
>         int (*clock_adj) (const clockid_t which_clock, struct timex *tx);
>         int (*timer_create) (struct k_itimer *timer);
>         int (*nsleep) (const clockid_t which_clock, int flags,
> -                      struct timespec *, struct timespec __user *);
> +                      struct timespec64 *, struct timespec __user *);
>         long (*nsleep_restart) (struct restart_block *restart_block);

You change one of the two arguments, but not the second one
or the code in the restart handler that uses that __user pointer.

Your patch is a good step in the right direction, and the second half
of it is definitely complicated enough to be done in a separate
patch, so I think it's good to keep them separate, just add
explain why this is done one at a time.

    Arnd