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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZoPvR39vGeluD5T2@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 05:15:03 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	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, Jul 02, 2024 at 08:09:46AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > corrupt timestamps like this?
> > 
> > inode_set_ctime_to_ts should return an error if things are out of range.
> 
> Currently it just returns the timespec64 we're setting it to (which
> makes it easy to do several assignments), so we'd need to change its
> prototype to handle this case, and fix up the callers to recognize the
> error.
> 
> Alternately it may be easier to just add in a test for when
> __i_ctime == KTIME_MAX in the appropriate callers and have them error
> out. I'll have a look and see what makes sense.

The seems like a more awkward interface vs one that explicitly checks.

> 
> > How do we currently catch this when it comes from userland?
> > 
> 
> Not sure I understand this question. ctime values should never come
> from userland. They should only ever come from the system clock.

Ah, yes, utimes only changes mtime.