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]

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 08:12:34 -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 08:21:42AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Many of the existing callers of inode_ctime_to_ts are in void return
> functions. They're just copying data from an internal representation to
> struct inode and assume it always succeeds. For those we'll probably
> have to catch bad ctime values earlier.
> 
> So, I think I'll probably have to roll bespoke error handling in all of
> the relevant filesystems if we go this route. There are also
> differences between filesystems -- does it make sense to refuse to load
> an inode with a bogus ctime on NFS or AFS? Probably not.
> 
> Hell, it may be simpler to just ditch this patch and reimplement
> mgtimes using the nanosecond fields like the earlier versions did.

Thatdoes for sure sound simpler.  What is the big advantage of the
ktime_t?  Smaller size?