netdev - Re: [PATCH 12/12] [RFC] can: avoid using timeval for uapi

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: <56138EDC.8080501@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:05:32 +0200
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] [RFC] can: avoid using timeval for uapi

On 10/06/2015 10:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 05 October 2015 20:51:08 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>> I double checked some (more) BCM applications I have access to.
>>
>> E.g. https://github.com/linux-can/can-tests
>>
>> When you do a 'git grep ival1' there you get something like
>>
>> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = 1;
>> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = 0;
>> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec = 0;
>> tst-bcm-cycle.c:        msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec = 0;
>> tst-bcm-dump.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_sec       = timeout / 1000000;
>> tst-bcm-dump.c: msg.msg_head.ival1.tv_usec      = timeout % 1000000;
>> (..)
>>
>> So the usual way to assign values to ival1 and ival2 is NOT to assign an
>> existing struct timeval but to directly assign its tv_[u]sec elements.
> 
> Ok, very good.
> 
>> I applied your bcm.h changes to my local can-tests tree and it compiles
>> without any problems - as expected. I don't see any serious drawback with your
>> idea. I wonder whether developers would ever notice this change ...
>>
>>> We could address problem a) by using '__u32' or 'int' members
>>> rather than 'long', but that would have a more significant
>>> downside in also breaking support for all existing 64-bit user
>>> binaries that might be using this interface, which is likely
>>> not acceptable.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>> Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>>
>> Thanks for your good suggestion to make the BCM API y2038 proof!
>>
>> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> What is the normal path for CAN patches? Should I resend with your
> Ack and without the RFC for Marc to pick it up?

You can add my:

Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>

add upstream the 2038 fixes as a block.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)