linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/23] y2038: time: avoid timespec usage in settimeofday()

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 15:35:35 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>,
        zhengbin <zhengbin13@...wei.com>,
        Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/23] y2038: time: avoid timespec usage in settimeofday()

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:04 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:53 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > My idea was to not duplicate the range check that is done
> > in do_sys_settimeofday64() and again in do_settimeofday64:
> >
> >         if (!timespec64_valid_settod(ts))
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> > The only check we should need in addition to this is to ensure
> > that passing an invalid tv_usec number doesn't become an
> > unexpectedly valid tv_nsec after the multiplication.
>
> Right, but please add a proper comment as you/we are going to scratch heads
> 4 weeks from now when staring at that check and wondering why it is
> incomplete.

Ok, done. I had just uploaded the branch with the fixup for
the __user pointer access in the same patch, but that version
had introduced another typo. I hope the version I uploaded
now has all known issues addressed for tomorrow's linux-next.

      Arnd