netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/2] xfrm: consistently use time64_t in xfrm_timer

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:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:04:12 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Steffen Klassert" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] xfrm: consistently use time64_t in xfrm_timer_handler()

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 12:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> For some reason, blamed commit did the right thing in xfrm_policy_timer()
> but did not in xfrm_timer_handler()
>
> Fixes: 386c5680e2e8 ("xfrm: use time64_t for in-kernel timestamps")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>

I don't remember anything about this one. I thought that perhaps it
was using 'long' for a relative value that is guaranteed to fit
but needs an otherwise expensive 64-bit division. I don't see
any of that though, it looks like an obvious bug.

Thanks for fixing it,

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>