linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v2] timestamp fixes

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgoNW9QmEzhJR7C1_vKWKr=8JoD4b7idQDNHOa10P_i4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:24:43 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] timestamp fixes

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 04:21, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>   git@...olite.kernel.org:pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs tags/v6.6-rc3.vfs.ctime.revert

So for some reason pr-tracker-bot doesn't seem to have reacted to this
pull request, but it's in my tree now.

I *do* have one reaction to all of this: now that you have made
"i_ctime" be something that cannot be accessed directly (and renamed
it to "__i_ctime"), would you mind horribly going all the way, and do
the same for i_atime and i_mtime too?

The reason I ask is that I *really* despise "struct timespec64" as a type.

I despise it inherently, but I despise it even more when you really
use it as another type entirely, and are hiding bits in there.

I despise it because "tv_sec" obviously needs to be 64-bit, but then
"tv_nsec" is this horrible abomination. It's defined as "long", which
is all kinds of crazy. It's bogus and historical.

And it's wasteful.

Now, in the case of i_ctime, you took advantage of that waste by using
one (of the potentially 2..34!) unused bits for that
"fine-granularity" flag.

But even when you do that, there's up to 33 other bits just lying
around, wasting space in a very central data structure.

So it would actually be much better to explode the 'struct timespec64'
into explicit 64-bit seconds field, and an explicit 32-bit field with
two bits reserved. And not even next to each other, because they don't
pack well in general.

So instead of

        struct timespec64       i_atime;
        struct timespec64       i_mtime;
        struct timespec64       __i_ctime;

where that last one needs accessors to access, just make them *all*
have helper accessors, and make it be

        u64  i_atime_sec;
        u64  i_mtime_sec;
        u64  i_ctime_sec;
        u32  i_atime_nsec;
        u32  i_mtime_nsec;
        u32  i_ctime_nsec;

and now that 'struct inode' should shrink by 12 bytes.

Then do this:

  #define inode_time(x) \
       (struct timespec64) { x##_sec, x##_nsec }

and you can now create a timespec64 by just doing

    inode_time(inode->i_atime)

or something like that (to help create those accessor functions).

Now, I agree that 12 bytes in the disaster that is 'struct inode' is
likely a drop in the ocean. We have tons of big things in there (ie
several list_heads, a whole 'struct address_space' etc etc), so it's
only twelve bytes out of hundreds.

But dammit, that 'timespec64' really is ugly, and now that you're
hiding bits in it and it's no longer *really* a 'timespec64', I feel
like it would be better to do it right, and not mis-use a type that
has other semantics, and has other problems.

              Linus