linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls

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:   Mon, 26 Jun 2017 03:35:25 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        john.stultz@...aro.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
        y2038@...ts.linaro.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> The series aims at isolating data conversions of time_t based structures:
> struct timespec and struct itimerspec at user space boundaries.
> This helps to later change the underlying types to handle y2038 changes
> to these.

Nice...  A few questions:

* what about setitimer(2)?  Right now that's the only remaining user of
get_compat_itimerval(); similar for getitimer(2) and put_compat_itimerval().

* you have two callers of get_compat_itimerspec64(); one is followed by
itimerspec64_valid(), another - by its open-coded analogue.  The same
goes for get_itimerspec64(); wouldn't it be better to have both check
the validity immediately and simply fail with -EINVAL?  Matter of taste,
but...

* should __sys_recvmmsg() switch to timespec64?