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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1741317 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix y2038 issues for security/keys subsystem

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: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix y2038 issues for security/keys subsystem James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2017-09-28 11:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix y2038 issues for security/keys subsystem David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2017-09-28 11:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix y2038 issues for security/keys subsystem James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2017-09-28 11:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix y2038 issues for security/keys subsystem Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2017-09-29 00:10 +0200

#1741317 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix y2038 issues for security/keys subsystem

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Baolin Wang wrote:

> Since 'time_t', 'timeval' and 'timespec' types are not year 2038 safe on
> 32 bits system, this patchset tries to fix this issues for security/keys
> subsystem.
> 
> Changes since v1:
>  - Add reviewed tag from Arnd.
>  - Drop Patch 3 which had been merged into kernel 4.14 by David.
> 
> Baolin Wang (2):
>   security: keys: Replace time_t/timespec with time64_t
>   security: keys: Replace time_t with time64_t for struct
>     key_preparsed_payload
> 
>  include/linux/key-type.h     |    2 +-
>  include/linux/key.h          |    7 ++++---
>  security/keys/gc.c           |   20 ++++++++++----------
>  security/keys/internal.h     |    8 ++++----
>  security/keys/key.c          |   27 ++++++++++-----------------
>  security/keys/keyring.c      |   18 +++++++++---------
>  security/keys/permission.c   |    3 +--
>  security/keys/proc.c         |   20 ++++++++++----------
>  security/keys/process_keys.c |    2 +-
>  9 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)

David, have you taken these into your tree?  I can apply them to mine if 
needed.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1741328

James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:

> David, have you taken these into your tree?  I can apply them to mine if 
> needed.

I was intending to add them to my next tree for security/next.

David

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

#1741348

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Howells wrote:

> James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> 
> > David, have you taken these into your tree?  I can apply them to mine if 
> > needed.
> 
> I was intending to add them to my next tree for security/next.

Ok, please add
Reviewed-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>

to these.

Also, please use the new next-general branch for tracking & pull requests 
for the next kernel.



-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>

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

#1741828

On 28 September 2017 at 17:48, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Howells wrote:
>
>> James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>>
>> > David, have you taken these into your tree?  I can apply them to mine if
>> > needed.
>>
>> I was intending to add them to my next tree for security/next.
>
> Ok, please add
> Reviewed-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>
>
> to these.
>
> Also, please use the new next-general branch for tracking & pull requests
> for the next kernel.

Thanks James and David.

-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web