On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 12:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> do_gettimeofday() is deprecated and we should generally use time64_t
> based functions instead.
> 
> In case of nfsd, all three users of nfssvc_boot only use the initial
> time as a unique token, and are not affected by it overflowing, so they
> are not affected by the y2038 overflow.
> 
> This converts the structure to timespec64 anyway and adds comments
> to all uses, to document that we have thought about it and avoid
> having to look at it again.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> ---
>  fs/nfsd/netns.h    |  2 +-
>  fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c  | 10 ++++++----
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c |  5 +++--
>  fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c   |  2 +-
>  4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/netns.h b/fs/nfsd/netns.h
> index 3714231a9d0f..1c91391f4805 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/netns.h
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/netns.h
> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ struct nfsd_net {
>       bool lockd_up;
>  
>       /* Time of server startup */
> -     struct timeval nfssvc_boot;
> +     struct timespec64 nfssvc_boot;
>  
>       /*
>        * Max number of connections this nfsd container will allow. Defaults
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c
> index bf444b664011..3579e0ae1131 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c
> @@ -747,8 +747,9 @@ nfs3svc_encode_writeres(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, __be32 *p)
>       if (resp->status == 0) {
>               *p++ = htonl(resp->count);
>               *p++ = htonl(resp->committed);
> -             *p++ = htonl(nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec);
> -             *p++ = htonl(nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_usec);
> +             /* unique identifier, y2038 overflow can be ignored */
> +             *p++ = htonl((u32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec);
> +             *p++ = htonl(nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_nsec);
>       }
>       return xdr_ressize_check(rqstp, p);
>  }
> @@ -1118,8 +1119,9 @@ nfs3svc_encode_commitres(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, __be32 
> *p)
>       p = encode_wcc_data(rqstp, p, &resp->fh);
>       /* Write verifier */
>       if (resp->status == 0) {
> -             *p++ = htonl(nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec);
> -             *p++ = htonl(nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_usec);
> +             /* unique identifier, y2038 overflow can be ignored */
> +             *p++ = htonl((u32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec);
> +             *p++ = htonl(nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_nsec);
>       }
>       return xdr_ressize_check(rqstp, p);
>  }
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> index 7896f841482e..008ea0b627d0 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -564,10 +564,11 @@ static void gen_boot_verifier(nfs4_verifier *verifier, 
> struct net *net)
>  
>       /*
>        * This is opaque to client, so no need to byte-swap. Use
> -      * __force to keep sparse happy
> +      * __force to keep sparse happy. y2038 time_t overflow is
> +      * irrelevant in this usage.
>        */
>       verf[0] = (__force __be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_sec;
> -     verf[1] = (__force __be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_usec;
> +     verf[1] = (__force __be32)nn->nfssvc_boot.tv_nsec;
>       memcpy(verifier->data, verf, sizeof(verifier->data));
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> index 6bbc717f40f2..28ff3e078af6 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
> @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ int nfsd_create_serv(struct net *net)
>               register_inet6addr_notifier(&nfsd_inet6addr_notifier);
>  #endif
>       }
> -     do_gettimeofday(&nn->nfssvc_boot);              /* record boot time */
> +     ktime_get_real_ts64(&nn->nfssvc_boot); /* record boot time */
>       return 0;
>  }
>  

I wonder if we'd be better off just using nfssvc_boot.tv_sec as the
verifier? I don't see us ever calling that ktime_get_real_ts64 more than
once per second for this purpose, and that would eliminate wraparound.
That said, wraparound is not a huge concern here anyway, so this is
certainly fine for now:

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038

Reply via email to