linux-kernel - Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 04/20] mount: Add mount warning for impending timestamp expiry

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:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:15:36 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 04/20] mount: Add mount warning for impending
 timestamp expiry

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:09 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:11 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:25 PM Ben Hutchings
> > <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 13:44 -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 AM Ben Hutchings
> > > > <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 18:49 -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > > > > > The warning reuses the uptime max of 30 years used by the
> > > > > > setitimeofday().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the warning is only added for new filesystem mounts
> > > > > > through the mount syscall. Automounts do not have the same warning.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Another thing - perhaps this warning should be suppressed for read-only
> > > > > mounts?
> > > >
> > > > Many filesystems support read only mounts only. We do fill in right
> > > > granularities and limits for these filesystems as well. In keeping
> > > > with the trend, I have added the warning accordingly. I don't think I
> > > > have a preference either way. But, not warning for the red only mounts
> > > > adds another if case. If you have a strong preference, I could add it
> > > > in.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that the warning is needed if there is a possibility of
> > > data loss (incorrect timestamps, potentially leading to incorrect
> > > decisions about which files are newer).  This can happen only when a
> > > filesystem is mounted read-write, or when a filesystem image is
> > > created.
> > >
> > > I think that warning for read-only mounts would be an annoyance to
> > > users retrieving files from old filesystems.
> >
> > I agree, the warning is not helpful for read-only mounts. An earlier
> > plan was to completely disallow writable mounts that might risk an
> > overflow (in some configurations at least). The warning replaces that
> > now, and I think it should also just warn for the cases that would
> > otherwise have been dangerous.
>
> Ok, I will make the change to exclude new read only mounts. I will use
> __mnt_is_readonly() so that it also exculdes filesystems that are
> readonly also.
> The diff looks like below:
>
> -       if (!error && sb->s_time_max &&
> +       if (!error && !__mnt_is_readonly(mnt) &&
>             (ktime_get_real_seconds() + TIME_UPTIME_SEC_MAX > sb->s_time_max)) {
>
> Note that we can get rid of checking for non zero sb->s_time_max now.

One more thing, we will probably have to add a second warning for when
the filesystem is re-mounted rw after the initial readonly mount.

-Deepa