linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] staging: exfat: drop duplicate date_time

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:   Sun, 8 Sep 2019 19:54:24 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Valentin Vidic <vvidic@...entin-vidic.from.hr>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] staging: exfat: drop duplicate date_time_t struct

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 05:35:37PM +0000, Valentin Vidic wrote:
> Use timestamp_t for everything and cleanup duplicate code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Vidic <vvidic@...entin-vidic.from.hr>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/exfat/exfat.h       |  35 +++---
>  drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c | 158 ++++++++--------------------
>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 138 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat.h b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat.h
> index 0aa14dea4e09..58e1e889779f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat.h
> @@ -241,16 +241,6 @@ static inline u16 get_row_index(u16 i)
>  #define UNI_PAR_DIR_NAME        "\0.\0."
>  #endif
>  
> -struct date_time_t {
> -	u16      Year;
> -	u16      Month;
> -	u16      Day;
> -	u16      Hour;
> -	u16      Minute;
> -	u16      Second;
> -	u16      MilliSecond;
> -};
> -
>  struct part_info_t {
>  	u32      Offset;    /* start sector number of the partition */
>  	u32      Size;      /* in sectors */
> @@ -289,6 +279,16 @@ struct file_id_t {
>  	u32      hint_last_clu;
>  };
>  
> +struct timestamp_t {
> +	u16      millisec;   /* 0 ~ 999              */

You added this field to this structure, why?  You did not document that
in the changelog text above.  Are you _sure_ you can do this and that
this does not refer to an on-disk layout?

thanks,

greg k-h