Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 04/11] posix timers:Introduce the 64bit methods with timespec64 type for k_clock structure

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE2(timer_gettime, timer_t, timer_id,
> >                        struct compat_itimerspec __user *, setting)
> 
> As a side note, I want to kill off the get_fs()/set_fs() calls in
> the process. These always make me dizzy when I try to work out whether
> there is a potential security hole (there is not in this case), and
> they can be slow on some architectures.

Yeah. I have to take a deep breath every time I look at those :)
 
> My preferred solution is one where we end up with the same syscalls
> for both 32-bit and 64-bit, and basically use the
> compat_sys_timer_gettime() implementation (or a simplified version)
> for the existing , something like this:

No objections from my side. I was not looking into the syscall magic
yet. I just wanted to avoid the code churn and have the guts of the
syscalls factored out for simple reusage.

....
 
> Note the use of a separate __kernel_itimerspec64 for the user interface
> here, which I think will be needed to hide the differences between the
> normal itimerspec on 64-bit machines, and the new itimerspec on 32-bit
> platforms that will be defined differently (using 'long long').

Confused.

timespec64 / itimerspec64 should be the same independent of 64bit and
32bit. So why do we need another variant ?

> I would also prefer not too many people to work on the syscalls, and
> would rather have Baolin not touch any of the syscall prototypes for
> the moment.

I did not ask him to change any of the syscall prototypes. I just
wanted him to split out the guts of the syscall into a seperate static
function to avoid all that code churn.

Thanks,

	tglx