linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] y2038: make CONFIG_64BIT

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: <CAK8P3a0rdByED8ZsCSm4biuvOhkKs3o9_wFnGnSHk0hOhu-vsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Apr 2019 22:47:17 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Cc:     Stepan Golosunov <stepan@...osunov.pp.ru>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] y2038: make CONFIG_64BIT_TIME unconditional

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:06 PM Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de> wrote:
> > 27.04.2019 в 00:46:53 +0200 Lukasz Majewski написал:
> > (I am wondering whether such trucation is undefined behaviour in C
>
> According to [1] - Chapter 6.3.1.3 - Point 3 it is
> implementation-defined.

The kernel relies on the sane behavior for integer overflow in many
places already, and it is built with -fno-strict-overflow to also make
sure gcc doesn't optimize cases that would be undefined otherwise.

> > and
> > whether there should be sign-extension instead of zeroing-out for the
> > in_compat_syscall() case though.)
>
> What I've found is that "typically" the high order bits are discarded.
>
> However, it is still "implementation dependent".

I think the question was whether we should use

          kts.tv_nsec = (int)kts.tv_nsec;

instead of

          kts.tv_nsec &= 0xfffffffful;

Both have a clearly defined meaning in the C dialect we use in the
kernel, but differ in the upper 32 bits for negative input values.

I would say that using sign-extension indeed makes more sense
here, but we don't need to change it for linux-5.1, since none of the
callers of get_timespec64() care -- any negative 32-bit tv_nsec
value results in -EINVAL, including the utimensat() syscall that
has two special cases outside of the 0...999999999 range.

      Arnd