On 13 May 2015 at 15:55, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
Hi Arnd, Thanks for your comments, i'll try to introduce the new security_settime64() function as we talked in private. Thanks. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
