This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Y2038] Question regarding support of old time interfaces beyond y2038


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).

2) I know of one case where the new interfaces don't cover all of the
functionality of the old ones: timers started by setitimer continue to
run after an execve, timers started by timer_create don't.  This means
setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL) can be used to impose a CPU time limit on a
program you didn't write, and timer_create can't.  If new kernels are
not going to have setitimer as a primitive, we need some other way of
getting the same effect.

zw


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]