On Wednesday 13 May 2015 10:43:25 Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > -int do_sys_settimeofday(const struct timespec *tv, const struct
> > timezone *tz)
> > > +int do_sys_settimeofday64(const struct timespec64 *tv, const struct
> > timezone *tz)
> > > {
> > > static int firsttime = 1;
> > > int error = 0;
> > > + struct timespec ts;
> > >
> > > - if (tv && !timespec_valid(tv))
> > > + if (tv && !timespec64_valid(tv))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - error = security_settime(tv, tz);
> > > + ts = timespec64_to_timespec(*tv);
> > > + error = security_settime(&ts, tz);
> >
> > How is that 2038 safe? Not at all.
> >
> > I told you before that we fix the underlying functions before we add
> > such bogosities.
> >
> >
> Thanks for your comments, and i'll continue to repair my patch.
> But could you explain what the defects in do_sys_settimeofday64
> function? Thanks.
What Thomas meant here is that you should first fix security_settime
to take a timespec64 argument. I guess you could introduce a
security_settime64() function first, using another inline wrapper
to provide the existing security_settime() API. security_settime()
does not actually use the time argument, so this is a fairly easy
thing to do.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
