From: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] Question regarding support of old time interfaces beyond y2038
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:43:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307154310.677b59dd@jawa> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3GotM4WY9dJK8yPujxLgHXtnes=nMUKq5fJ4hTkZWqzg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2956 bytes --]
Hi Arnd,
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:53 AM Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Zack,
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > From other discussion [4] - regarding the following system
> > > > calls: time, stime, gettimeofday, settimeofday, adjtimex,
> > > > nanosleep, alarm, getitimer, setitimer, select, utime, utimes,
> > > > futimesat, and {old,new}{l,f,}stat{,64}.
> > > >
> > > > "These all pass 32-bit time_t arguments on 32-bit
> > > > architectures and are replaced by other interfaces (e.g. posix
> > > > timers and clocks, statx). C libraries implementing 64-bit
> > > > time_t in 32-bit architectures have to implement the handles by
> > > > wrapping around the newer interfaces."
> > >
> > > 1) We should be clear that most of these will continue to be
> > > supported as C library interfaces even if they are not system
> > > calls. Some of them are obsolete enough and/or rarely used
> > > enough that we might not bother (the older ways to set the system
> > > clock, for instance).
> >
> > The question here is about the decision if even the old time APIs
> > shall be supported on 32 bit systems which are going to be Y2038
> > proof (like the 'stime').
>
> See my other reply. In the kernel, it won't be supported (the old
> syscall is of course still there, but we may have an option to remove
> all time32 interfaces).
To be more specific:
I'm thinking of settimeofday/gettimeofday syscalls.
In the kernel we use internally do_sys_settimeofday64() to support
clock_settime() and settimeofday()
The internal (in-kernel) representation for those two is struct
timespec64.
If I may ask - why settimeofday64() and gettimeofday64() are not
implemented?
Is it because the same result can be achieved with clock_settime64(tv64)
+ settimeofday(NULL, tz) ?
(The drawback is two syscalls instead of one).
I've also stumbled upon the __kernel_timex introduction on the
playground branch:
"time: Add struct __kernel_timex"
2c620ff93d9fbd5d644760d4c21d389078ec1080
This one introduces the:
struct __kernel_timex_timeval {
__kernel_time64_t tv_sec;
long long tv_usec;
};
This code is "protected" by CONFIG_64BIT_TIME.
Is there any plan to explicitly introduce:
struct __kernel_timeval {
__kernel_time64_t tv_sec;
long ong tv_usec;
}
and convert settimeofday()/gettimeofday() ?
Thanks in advance for your help.
> In glibc, it's probably there in a y2038-safe
> way since it is there now, other C libraries may take other decisions
> that are independent of y2038.
>
> Arnd
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-07 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-05 15:23 [Y2038] Question regarding support of old time interfaces beyond y2038 Lukasz Majewski
2019-03-05 16:05 ` Zack Weinberg
2019-03-05 16:56 ` Ben Hutchings
2019-03-07 7:53 ` Lukasz Majewski
2019-03-07 8:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-03-07 14:43 ` Lukasz Majewski [this message]
2019-03-07 15:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-03-07 19:20 ` Joseph Myers
2019-03-05 17:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-03-07 7:47 ` Lukasz Majewski
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=20190307154310.677b59dd@jawa \
--to=lukma@denx.de \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zackw@panix.com \
/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