linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] input: serio: Replace timeval by 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]

Message-ID: <CABeXuvrDnu_8gq=PFT1pFEKq9pwBpybuMu+_Opvf=xC5v_iwZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:37:38 -0800
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] input: serio: Replace timeval by timespec64

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>> struct timeval is not y2038 safe.
>> All references to timeval will be deleted from the
>> kernel to make it y2038 safe.
>> Replace its uses by y2038 safe struct timespec64.
>>
>> The timestamps changed here only keep track of delta
>> times. These timestamps are also internal to kernel.
>> Hence, monotonic times are sufficient here.
>> The unit of the delta times is also changed in certain
>> cases to nanoseconds rather than microseconds. This is
>> in line with timespec64 which keeps time in nanoseconds.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> Hi Deepa,
>
> I forgot you also had these on your backlog. I submitted a different
> set of patches
> two weeks ago for the two HP drivers, originally by Pingbo Wen, based on a
> different approach.
>
> That version simplified the code in question a bit more by using jiffies,
> while your version is a little safer since it changes less. Both versions
> should be fine though, it's up to Dmitry which one he wants to pick up.

Dmitry, please let me know if you would like this version. If not, I
can drop the patch when I post an update.

-Deepa