linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi: cper: avoid using get

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: <CAKv+Gu9OD6s24Aq1bLBr-yq_tn6wPR0TAkddO+VTwM7jR76dOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:50:46 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: cper: avoid using get_seconds()

On 18 June 2018 at 17:49, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2018 at 16:17, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
>>> -               atomic64_set(&seq, ((u64)get_seconds()) << 32);
>>> +       if (!atomic64_read(&seq)) {
>>> +               time64_t time = ktime_get_real_seconds();
>>> +
>>> +               /*
>>> +                * This code is unlikely to still be needed in year 2106,
>>> +                * but just in case, let's use a few more bits for timestamps
>>> +                * after y2038 to be sure they keep increasing monotonically
>>> +                * for the next few hundred years...
>>> +                */
>>> +               if (time < 0x80000000)
>>> +                       atomic64_set(&seq, (ktime_get_real_seconds()) << 32);
>>> +               else
>>> +                       atomic64_set(&seq, 0x8000000000000000ull |
>>> +                                          ktime_get_real_seconds() << 24);
>>> +       }
>>
>> Given that these values are never decoded and interpreted as
>> timestamps, can't we simply switch to the second flavour immediately?
>
> I considered that, but the downside would be that all future filenames would
> come before all past file names.

Won't we have that same problem in 2038?

> I don't know if the order is important at
> all, but the current implementation at least looks like it's intended to keep
> all file names strictly sorted across boots.
>
>          Arnd