linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] fs: turn inode ctime fields into a single ktime

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: <d91a29f0e600793917b73ac23175e02dafd56beb.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 05:56:37 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Alexander Viro
 <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara
 <jack@...e.cz>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, 
 Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@...cle.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
 Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,  Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef
 Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,  Hugh
 Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 kernel-team@...com,  linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,  linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,  linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] fs: turn inode ctime fields into a single ktime_t

On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:37 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 08:22:07PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > 2) the filesystem has been altered (fuzzing? deliberate doctoring?).
> > 
> > None of these seem like legitimate use cases so I'm arguing that we
> > shouldn't worry about them.
> 
> Not worry seems like the wrong answer here.  Either we decide they
> are legitimate enough and we preserve them, or we decide they are
> bogus and refuse reading the inode.  But we'll need to consciously
> deal with the case.
> 

Is there a problem with consciously dealing with it by clamping the
time at KTIME_MAX? If I had a fs with corrupt timestamps, the last
thing I'd want is the filesystem refusing to let me at my data because
of them.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>