linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 02/38] posix-cpu-timers: Use common permission check in posix_cpu_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190821234024.GE22020@lenoir>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 01:40:25 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 02/38] posix-cpu-timers: Use common permission check
 in posix_cpu_clock_get()

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:08:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the next slightly different copy of permission checks. That also
> removes the necessarity to check the return value of the sample functions
> because the clock id is already validated.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c |   61 ++++++++++-------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
> @@ -289,53 +289,24 @@ static int cpu_clock_sample_group(const
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int posix_cpu_clock_get_task(struct task_struct *tsk,
> -				    const clockid_t which_clock,
> -				    struct timespec64 *tp)
> +static int posix_cpu_clock_get(const clockid_t clock, struct timespec64 *tp)
>  {
> -	int err = -EINVAL;
> -	u64 rtn;
> +	const clockid_t clkid = CPUCLOCK_WHICH(clock);

So I guess you later remove the CPUCLOCK_WHICH() from cpu_clock_sample*()
and turn them to void.

Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>