From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754923AbcDST7t (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:59:49 -0400 Received: from h2.hallyn.com ([78.46.35.8]:52384 "EHLO h2.hallyn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753646AbcDST7s (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:59:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:59:46 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Kees Cook Cc: John Stultz , Baolin Wang , Serge Hallyn , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Moore , Stephen Smalley , John Johansen , Casey Schaufler , Andreas Gruenbacher , Alexander Viro , Neil Brown , Jann Horn , Mark Brown , Christopher Hall , Xunlei Pang , Harald Geyer , Arnd Bergmann , lkml , LSM List Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/5] security: Introduce security_settime64() Message-ID: <20160419195946.GB32382@mail.hallyn.com> References: <50b61ce23a73b68c3c55d6d9aa416af29001205a.1438170155.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org): > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:54 AM, John Stultz wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Baolin Wang 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 > > > > 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.