Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:25:26 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Hannen <lukas.hannen@opensource.tttech-industrial.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in
 timespec64_to_ns()
Message-ID: <YURQ9o1rDeqmUkSL@kroah.com>
References: <20210913131113.390368911@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20210913131123.500712780@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CAK8P3a0z5jE=Z3Ps5bFTCFT7CHZR1JQ8VhdntDJAfsUxSPCcEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <874kak9moe.ffs@tglx>
 <CAK8P3a0mAOgo_7xVfHr2YfeKa8xQPH6GfafB96NPvFAnQF_LBg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0mAOgo_7xVfHr2YfeKa8xQPH6GfafB96NPvFAnQF_LBg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 09:31:33AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:32 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 21:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > I have done the analysis. setitimer() does not have any problem with
> > that simply because it already checks at the call site that the seconds
> > value is > 0 and so do all the other user visible interfaces. See
> > get_itimerval() ...
> 
> Right, I now came to the same conclusion after taking a closer look,
> see my reply from yesterday.
> 
> > Granted  that the kernel internal interfaces do not have those checks,
> > but they already have other safety nets in place to prevent this and I
> > could not identify any callsite which has trouble with that change.
> >
> > If I failed to spot one then what the heck is the problem? It was broken
> > before that change already!
> 
> My bad for the unfortunate timing. When only saw the patch when Greg
> posted it during the stable review and wasn't completely sure about it
> at the time, so I was hoping that he could just hold off until you had a chance
> to reply either saying that you had already checked this case or that it
> was dangerous, but now it's already reverted.
> 
> I agree we should put back the fix into all stable kernels.

Ok, I'll queue it up again after this round goes out.

thanks for the additional review.

greg k-h