Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1381915 > unrolled thread

Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64() John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2016-04-18 19:00 +0200
    Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64() Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-04-18 19:10 +0200
      Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64() "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> - 2016-04-19 22:00 +0200
    Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64() Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2016-04-19 04:10 +0200

#1381915 — Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64()

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
> security_settime() uses a timespec, which is not year 2038 safe
> on 32bit systems. Thus this patch introduces the security_settime64()
> function with timespec64 type. We also convert the cap_settime() helper
> function to use the 64bit types.
>
> Move the security_settime() to the head file as a inline function for
> removing that inline helper when following up patches are fixed the
> call sites.
>
> None of the existing hooks is using the timespec argument and therefor
> the patch is not doing any functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>

Hey Baolin,
  If you get an ack, like you did from James, please include it in the
commit message of following submissions

Serge, Kees: Any objection to this patch going in via the
tip/timers/core tree with the dependent settimeofday64 call?

Otherwise I'll queue this up for testing.

thanks
-john


.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1381921

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:54 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
>> security_settime() uses a timespec, which is not year 2038 safe
>> on 32bit systems. Thus this patch introduces the security_settime64()
>> function with timespec64 type. We also convert the cap_settime() helper
>> function to use the 64bit types.
>>
>> Move the security_settime() to the head file as a inline function for
>> removing that inline helper when following up patches are fixed the
>> call sites.
>>
>> None of the existing hooks is using the timespec argument and therefor
>> the patch is not doing any functional changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
>
> Hey Baolin,
>   If you get an ack, like you did from James, please include it in the
> commit message of following submissions
>
> Serge, Kees: Any objection to this patch going in via the
> tip/timers/core tree with the dependent settimeofday64 call?

No problem from me: makes sense to keep it all together in one tree.

-Kees

>
> Otherwise I'll queue this up for testing.
>
> thanks
> -john
>
>
> .



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1382816

Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org):
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:54 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> security_settime() uses a timespec, which is not year 2038 safe
> >> on 32bit systems. Thus this patch introduces the security_settime64()
> >> function with timespec64 type. We also convert the cap_settime() helper
> >> function to use the 64bit types.
> >>
> >> Move the security_settime() to the head file as a inline function for
> >> removing that inline helper when following up patches are fixed the
> >> call sites.
> >>
> >> None of the existing hooks is using the timespec argument and therefor
> >> the patch is not doing any functional changes.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
> >
> > Hey Baolin,
> >   If you get an ack, like you did from James, please include it in the
> > commit message of following submissions
> >
> > Serge, Kees: Any objection to this patch going in via the
> > tip/timers/core tree with the dependent settimeofday64 call?
> 
> No problem from me: makes sense to keep it all together in one tree.

Sorry for the delayed response - sounds good to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1382129

On 19 April 2016 at 00:54, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
>> security_settime() uses a timespec, which is not year 2038 safe
>> on 32bit systems. Thus this patch introduces the security_settime64()
>> function with timespec64 type. We also convert the cap_settime() helper
>> function to use the 64bit types.
>>
>> Move the security_settime() to the head file as a inline function for
>> removing that inline helper when following up patches are fixed the
>> call sites.
>>
>> None of the existing hooks is using the timespec argument and therefor
>> the patch is not doing any functional changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
>
> Hey Baolin,
>   If you get an ack, like you did from James, please include it in the
> commit message of following submissions

Ah, sorry, I forgot that. Do I need to resend it with James ack? Thanks.

>
> Serge, Kees: Any objection to this patch going in via the
> tip/timers/core tree with the dependent settimeofday64 call?
>
> Otherwise I'll queue this up for testing.
>
> thanks
> -john
>
>
> .



-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web