linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 20/24] xfs: disallow broken ioctls without compat-32-bit-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:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:06:15 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Allison Collins <allison.henderson@...cle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/24] xfs: disallow broken ioctls without compat-32-bit-time

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:52 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:45:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:05 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> > What is the timeline for that work now? I'm mainly interested in
> > getting the removal of 'time_t/timeval/timespec' and 'get_seconds()'
> > from the kernel done for v5.6, but it would be good to also have
> > this patch and the extended timestamps in the same version
> > just so we can claim that "all known y2038 issues" are addressed
> > in that release (I'm sure we will run into bugs we don't know yet).
>
> Personally, I think you should push this whenever it's ready.  Are you
> aiming to send all 24 patches as a treewide pull request directly to
> Linus, or would you rather the 2-3 xfs patches go through the xfs tree?

My plan is get as much of the remaining 60 patches into maintainer
trees for v5.6 and then send a pull request for whatever remains that
has not been picked up by anyone.

The 24 patches are the ones that didn't seem worth splitting into a
separate series, aside from these I also have v4l2, alsa and nfsd
pending, plus a final cleanup that removes the then-unused
interfaces.

So if you can pick up the xfs patches, that would help me.

> The y2038 format changes are going to take a while to push through
> review.  If somehow it all gets through review for 5.6 I can always
> apply both and fix the merge damage, but more likely y2038 timestamps is
> a <cough> 5.8 EXPERIMENTAL thing.
>
> Or later, given that Dave and I both have years worth of unreviewed
> patch backlog. :(

Ok, I see.

        Arnd