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]
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:46:05 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <>,
        Ralf Baechle <>,
        Marcel Holtmann <>,
        Johan Hedberg <>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <>,
        Gerrit Renker <>,
        Alexander Aring <>,
        Stefan Schmidt <>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <>,
        Vlad Yasevich <>,
        Neil Horman <>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <>,
        Andrew Hendry <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Willem de Bruijn <>,
        Deepa Dinamani <>,
        Network Development <>,
        LKML <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
> The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many
> socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same
> sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which
> results in a lot of duplicate code.
> With the introduction of 64-bit time_t on 32-bit architectures, this
> gets worse, as we then need four different ioctl commands in each
> socket protocol implementation.
> To simplify that, let's add a new .gettstamp() operation in
> struct proto_ops, and move ioctl implementation into the common
> sock_ioctl()/compat_sock_ioctl_trans() functions that these all go
> through.
> We can reuse the sock_get_timestamp() implementation, but generalize
> it so it can deal with both native and compat mode, as well as
> timeval and timespec structures.
> Acked-by: Stefan Schmidt <>
> Link:
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <>
> ---
> v2: reworked to not break sparc64 support

>From the discussion of v1 I thought you planned to unconditionally
call sock_gettstamp() for all protocols, avoiding the need to plumb in
all these new callbacks?

That is more concise, though this closer to the existing behavior. So,
fine either way.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists