linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] spufs: use timespec64 for timestamps

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, 16 Jan 2018 20:58:44 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] spufs: use timespec64 for timestamps

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
>> The switch log prints the tv_sec portion of timespec as a 32-bit
>> number, while overflows in 2106. It also uses the timespec type,
>> which is safe on 64-bit architectures, but deprecated because
>> it causes overflows in 2038 elsewhere.
>>
>> This changes it to timespec64 and printing a 64-bit number for
>> consistency.
>
> If we still have spufs in the tree in 2038 I'd be worried :)

Agreed. My hope is to get rid of 'timespec' in 2018 though, this is just
one of many parts of the puzzle.

         Arnd