linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14

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:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:11:04 -0500 (EST)
From:   Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
To:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>, chrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 14



----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 14:01, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Changes since 20191113:
> > The y2038 tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
> <trim>
> > The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the y2038 tree.
> >
> > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10388
> >  9238 files changed, 397357 insertions(+), 174171 deletions(-)
> 
> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> Regressions detected on x86_64, and i386.
> 
> LTP syscalls settimeofday01/02 failed on x86_64 and i386 running
> 5.4.0-rc7-next-20191114.
> 
> Following  ltp-syscalls-tests failed.
>     * settimeofday01
>     * settimeofday02
>     * stime01
>     * stime02

Looks like typo in
adde74306a4b ("y2038: time: avoid timespec usage in settimeofday()")

-               if (!timeval_valid(&user_tv))
+               if (tv->tv_usec > USEC_PER_SEC)

was likely meant as:

-               if (!timeval_valid(&user_tv))
+               if (new_ts.tv_nsec > USEC_PER_SEC)

since tv is user pointer.