lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/23] y2038: rusage: use __kernel_old_timeval
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:12:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
>
> Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
> user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
> the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
> the system call interface.
>
> While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
> the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
> ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
>
> In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
> for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
> i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
> if anyone thinks we should do that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> Question: should we also rename 'struct rusage' into 'struct __kernel_rusage'
> here, to make them completely unambiguous?

The patch looks ok to me. I must confess I looked into rusage long ago
so __kernel_timespec type used in uapi made me nervious at first,
but then i found that we've this type defined in time_types.h uapi
so userspace should be safe. I also like the idea of __kernel_rusage
but definitely on top of the series.

Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-12 22:10    [W:0.317 / U:10.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site