Linux Kernel Selftest development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	"Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] tools/nolibc: prefer explicit 64-bit time-related system calls
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 15:44:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fbca1d3e-12e4-4c4e-8091-87464035fe39@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251029-nolibc-uapi-types-v1-7-e79de3b215d8@weissschuh.net>

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, at 17:02, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Make sure to always use the 64-bit safe system calls
> in preparation for 64-bit time_t on 32-bit architectures.
>
> Also prevent issues on kernels which disable CONFIG_COMPAT_32BIT_TIME
> and therefore don't provide the 32-bit system calls anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>

Thanks for working on this!

> -#if defined(__NR_ppoll)
> -	struct timespec t;
> +#if defined(__NR_ppoll_time64)
> +	struct __kernel_timespec t;
> 
>  	if (timeout >= 0) {
>  		t.tv_sec  = timeout / 1000;
>  		t.tv_nsec = (timeout % 1000) * 1000000;
>  	}
> -	return my_syscall5(__NR_ppoll, fds, nfds, (timeout >= 0) ? &t : NULL, 
> NULL, 0);
> +	return my_syscall5(__NR_ppoll_time64, fds, nfds, (timeout >= 0) ? &t 

This looks good to me.

> -#elif defined(__NR_ppoll_time64)
> -	struct __kernel_timespec t;
> : NULL, NULL, 0);
> +#elif defined(__NR_ppoll)
> +	struct timespec t;
> 
>  	if (timeout >= 0) {
>  		t.tv_sec  = timeout / 1000;
>  		t.tv_nsec = (timeout % 1000) * 1000000;
>  	}

This is not wrong, but for consistency, I would use
__kernel_old_timespec with the old syscall macros, rather
than the nolibc-defined type.

A different approach would be to rely on timespec/timeval/time_t
to always use the 64-bit types and then just pick the time64
macros on 32-bit vs the old macros on 64-bit builds.

> -	return my_syscall5(__NR_ppoll_time64, fds, nfds, (timeout >= 0) ? &t 
> : NULL, NULL, 0);
> +	return my_syscall5(__NR_ppoll, fds, nfds, (timeout >= 0) ? &t : NULL, 
> NULL, 0);
>  #else
>  	return my_syscall3(__NR_poll, fds, nfds, timeout);
>  #endif

I would think that we can remove the final #else clause here
and just use the __NR_ppoll case as #else. It would also make
sense to change the first #if to check for a 32-bit ABI.

> diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h b/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h
> index e91b7d947161..10c517a38f86 100644
> --- a/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h
> +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h
> @@ -772,22 +772,22 @@ int sys_select(int nfds, fd_set *rfds, fd_set 
> *wfds, fd_set *efds, struct timeva
>  	return my_syscall5(__NR__newselect, nfds, rfds, wfds, efds, timeout);
>  #elif defined(__NR_select)
>  	return my_syscall5(__NR_select, nfds, rfds, wfds, efds, timeout);
> -#elif defined(__NR_pselect6)
> -	struct timespec t;
> +#elif defined(__NR_pselect6_time64)
> +	struct __kernel_timespec t;

These probably need to be flipped around, so that
__NR_pselect6_time64/__NR_pselect6 comes first because the other
ones use the wrong type on 32-bit targets.

Probably also do the same thing here with the #ifdef checking
the architecture instead of the syscall macro.

       Arnd

  reply	other threads:[~2025-10-30 14:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-29 16:02 [PATCH 00/12] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit ino_t, off_t and time-related types Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 01/12] tools/nolibc: use 64-bit ino_t Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 02/12] tools/nolibc: handle 64-bit off_t for llseek Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-30 14:56   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 03/12] tools/nolibc: prefer the llseek syscall Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 04/12] tools/nolibc: use 64-bit off_t Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 05/12] tools/nolibc: remove now superfluous overflow check in llseek Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-30 14:58   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 06/12] tools/nolibc: remove more __nolibc_enosys() fallbacks Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 07/12] tools/nolibc: prefer explicit 64-bit time-related system calls Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-30 14:44   ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 08/12] tools/nolibc: gettimeofday(): avoid libgcc 64-bit divisions Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-30 14:57   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-11-02  8:31   ` Willy Tarreau
2025-11-02  9:27     ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-02  9:49       ` Willy Tarreau
2025-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 09/12] tools/nolibc: use a custom struct timespec Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-30 14:46   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-11-02  8:36     ` Willy Tarreau
2025-11-02  8:40       ` Willy Tarreau
2025-11-02  9:41       ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-11-02  9:50         ` Willy Tarreau
2025-10-29 16:03 ` [PATCH 10/12] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit time types Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:03 ` [PATCH 11/12] selftests/nolibc: test compatibility of timespec and __kernel_timespec Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-29 16:03 ` [PATCH 12/12] tools/nolibc: remove time conversions Thomas Weißschuh
2025-10-30 14:58   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-11-02  8:44 ` [PATCH 00/12] tools/nolibc: always use 64-bit ino_t, off_t and time-related types Willy Tarreau

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fbca1d3e-12e4-4c4e-8091-87464035fe39@app.fastmail.com \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=w@1wt.eu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox