linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] KVM: x86: use timespec64 for KVM_HC_CLOCK

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: <CAK8P3a2m06oo-H2pCKh=TJAhVYkKSs3kQCuSiBTKwoZVUu0xpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 21:58:43 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] KVM: x86: use timespec64 for KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> wrote:
>> 2018-04-23 10:04+0200, Arnd Bergmann:
>>> The hypercall was added using a struct timespec based implementation,
>>> but we should not use timespec in new code.
>>>
>>> This changes it to timespec64. There is no functional change
>>> here since the implementation is only used in 64-bit kernels
>>> that use the same definition for timespec and timespec64.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 55dd00a73a51 ("KVM: x86: add KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING hypercall")
>>
>> (Removed the "Fixes:" tag as it doesn't really change behavior.)
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>> ---
>>> I originally sent this in October, but got no reply. The patch
>>> is still required for the overall cleanup of 'timespec' uses
>>> in the kernel, please apply.
>>
>> Queued now, thanks!
>>
>> Anything we need to do for the x86_platform_ops switch?
>
> I think it's on me to resend what I have. That patch is one of the few
> remaining ones in my backlog for y2038 after having sent out
> some 50 other patches (some new, some old).
>
> It has been in my testing tree since October though and not shown
> any regressions for a while (I had to do one modification after
> Jailhouse got merged), so I'll just send it out now.

I remember the problem now, that patch relied on another
one that turned out to be too ugly:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10016923/

I still had that as part of my own test builds, as the one that
we do want fails without it. However, one other patch I
sent today ("timekeeping: Remove timespec64 hack")
should provide a better path and let me completely
avoid that hack. I'll give that a try now and send the
modified x86_platform_ops patch.

       Arnd