linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v5 2/5] vfs: Add checks for filesystem timestamp limits

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: <CA+55aFwxqwnY7QLA8hbMG8AvwdWp5i94Tc=NoXEK+dcQnxHLMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:35:59 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v5 2/5] vfs: Add checks for filesystem timestamp limits

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> Would it be ok to have a simple way of removing the time_t definition (e.g.
> by passing '-DREQUIRE_TIME64' to the compiler, but without the Kconfig
> option? That way, someone who wants to ship a product can at least
> find the obvious dependencies on stuff that remains broken.

How would you find them?

People don't necessarily use "time_t". They might use "int" or whatever.

There is absolutely zero point to making this some kind of crazy
config option, because such an option will prove absolutely *NOTHING*.

Seriously. This whole concept is  completely stupid.

The only possible thing you can do is to

 (a) have an actual test-suite
 (b) set the time to 32+ bits
 (c) see what breaks

because otherwise it seems entirely pointless.

And no, we're not adding random crazy source modifications for pointless crap.

                      Linus