From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RESEND, net-next] xfrm: use time64_t for in-kernel
 timestamps
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:10:30 +0200
Message-ID: <20180712191030.4chaji3vswtnltdc@gauss3.secunet.de>
References: <20180711101941.4039411-1-arnd@arndb.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180711101941.4039411-1-arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:19:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The lifetime managment uses '__u64' timestamps on the user space
> interface, but 'unsigned long' for reading the current time in the kernel
> with get_seconds().
> 
> While this is probably safe beyond y2038, it will still overflow in 2106,
> and the get_seconds() call is deprecated because fo that.
> 
> This changes the xfrm time handling to use time64_t consistently, along
> with reading the time using the safer ktime_get_real_seconds(). It still
> suffers from problems that can happen from a concurrent settimeofday()
> call or (to a lesser degree) a leap second update, but since the time
> stamps are part of the user API, there is nothing we can do to prevent
> that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

Applied to the ipsec-next tree, thanks a lot!