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  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, 26 Mar 2019 13:31:16 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Miroslav Lichvar <>
cc:     LKML <>,
        John Stultz <>,
        Stephen Boyd <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Richard Cochran <>,
        Hongbo Yao <>,
        Xiongfeng Wang <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Force upper bound for setting

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:36:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > It is reasonable to force an upper bound for the various methods of setting
> > CLOCK_REALTIME. Year 2262 is the absolute upper bound. Assume a maximum
> > uptime of 30 years which is plenty enough even for esoteric embedded
> > systems. That results in an upper bound of year 2232 for setting the time.
> The patch looks good to me.
> I like this approach better than using a larger value closer to the
> overflow (e.g. one week) and stepping the clock back automatically
> when the clock reaches that time, but I suspect it might possibly
> break more tests (or any unusual applications messing with time) as a
> much larger interval is now EINVAL.

I'm fine with breaking a few tests on the way rather than having undefined
behaviour and the constant flow of patches tackling the wrong end of the



Powered by blists - more mailing lists