[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cbde441f-b172-2a01-606d-0f97681a59fb@gmx.fr>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 14:16:58 +0200
From: Arnaud Panaïotis <arnaud.panaiotis@....fr>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: y2038@...ts.linaro.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: with daemon.c after y2038 on 32-bits Kernel
Hello,
On 31/05/2022 12:54, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> On 31/05/2022 05:33, Arnd Bergmann via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> (cc correct libc-alpha list, sorry for the typo)
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:24 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 09:51, Arnaud Panaïotis wrote:
>>>> I'm working for a client to generate embedded 32-bits Linux Kernel working after y2038 issue.
>>>>
>>>> I generated a 5.15 Kernel thought Buildroot with Coreutils 9.0, GCC 11.2.0, Binutils 2.37, Glibc 2.34-9 and CFLAGS -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_TIME_BITS=64.
>>>>
>>>> I encounter an issue while working with OpenSSH (I initially contacted them before).
>>> To clarify: did you build just openssh with -D_TIME_BITS=64, or did
>>> you build the entire user space this way?
I made a patch for the whole Builroot, this way all packages are built
with it (unless it is filter-out, I had to make few patches).
Option is present in build log for daemon.c and sshd.c
>>>
>>>> After 2038, /usr/sbin/sshd does not create an error but it child does generate this one:
>>>> daemon() failed: Value too large for defined data type
>>>>
>>>> This happend here in sshd.c:
>>>>
>>>> 2019 /*
>>>> 2020 * If not in debugging mode, not started from inetd and not already
>>>> 2021 * daemonized (eg re-exec via SIGHUP), disconnect from the controlling
>>>> 2022 * terminal, and fork. The original process exits.
>>>> 2023 */
>>>> 2024 already_daemon = daemonized();
>>>> 2025 if (!(debug_flag || inetd_flag || no_daemon_flag || already_daemon)) {
>>>> 2026
>>>> 2027 if (daemon(0, 0) == -1)
>>>> 2028 fatal("daemon() failed: %.200s", strerror(errno));
>>> My guess is that there are parts of glibc that are not fully
>>> y2038-safe at the moment, but
>>> merely provide the interfaces for time64 applications.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the glibc code, I see
>>>
>>> int
>>> daemon (int nochdir, int noclose)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> if ((fd = __open_nocancel(_PATH_DEVNULL, O_RDWR, 0)) != -1
>>> && (__builtin_expect (__fstat64 (fd, &st), 0)
>>> == 0)) {
>>> ...
>>> } else {
>>> __close_nocancel_nostatus (fd);
>>> return -1;
>>> }
>>> return (0);
>>> }
> Thanks for catching it, I have opened a bug report for it [1] and I will fix
> and backport to 2.34 and 2.35.
>
> [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29203
Thanks, I'll watch this.
>
>>> __fstatat64 (int fd, const char *file, struct stat64 *buf, int flags)
>>> {
>>> struct __stat64_t64 st_t64;
>>> return __fstatat64_time64 (fd, file, &st_t64, flags)
>>> ?: __cp_stat64_t64_stat64 (&st_t64, buf);
>>> }
>>>
>>> If I'm reading this correctly, daemon() internally uses the time32
>>> version of 'stat', which fails for files with out-of-range timestamps.
>>> Are you able to rebuild the ssh binary (or your entire distro, if that's
>>> easier) against musl-1.2.x instead of glibc to see if the same thing
>>> happens there?
Musl did not worked previously for me, not sure for openssh only within
Buildroot.
I'll test the patch from ticket 29203, probably the easiest solution for me.
>>>
>>> Arnd
>>>
>>>> To reproduce:
>>>>
>>>> # date -s "2040-05-12"
>>>> # hwclock --systohc
>>>> # reboot
>>>> # /usr/sbin/sshd
>>>>
>>>> Note this error occurs only after the reboot, and setting a date before 2038 also require a reboot to remove the error.
>>>>
>>>> strace and gdb trace linked.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you need additional information.
--
*Arnaud PANAÏOTIS* | Lead Developer Freelance
+33 6 34 82 12 62 | arnaud.panaiotis@....fr <mailto:Arnaud Panaïotis
<arnaud.panaiotis@....fr>>
18 place Jean Moulin - 38000 Grenoble
APsudo - www.panaiotis.fr <https://www.panaiotis.fr>
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists