On 15 July 2015 at 18:24, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>> security_settime() returns a timespec, which is not year 2038 safe
>
> It returns int, which is year 2038 safe on all systems. Copy and paste
> is great, right?
>
Sorry, will fix that.
>> -int security_settime(const struct timespec *ts, const struct timezone *tz);
>> +int security_settime64(const struct timespec64 *ts, const struct timezone
>> *tz);
>> +static inline int security_settime(const struct timespec *ts, const struct
>> timezone *tz)
>> +{
>> + struct timespec64 ts64 = timespec_to_timespec64(*ts);
>> +
>> + return security_settime64(&ts64, tz);
>> +}
>
> What's the point of this inline? Explanation is missing in
> changelog.
>
> Also this wants follow up patches which fix the call sites and remove
> that inline helper again.
>
Yes, I'll add this explanation in changelog.
>> -int cap_settime(const struct timespec *ts, const struct timezone *tz)
>> +int cap_settime(const struct timespec64 *ts, const struct timezone *tz)
>
> Changelog is missing that none of the existing hooks is using the ts
> argument and therefor the patch is not doing any functional changes.
>
OK, will add these explanation. Thanks for your comments.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
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/
