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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABeXuvqBf6bu-OEAU0kkhHgkwxgxrZhDtxfvQ9LWOa+P2qBdsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:00:09 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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

>> 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.

Yes, this is intentional.
I was including the restart_block param in the syscall interfaces category.

I will make an explicit note in the commit text.

Thanks,
Deepa