This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v9] y2038: Introduce the __ASSUME_TIME64_SYSCALLS define
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx dot de>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Alistair Francis <alistair dot francis at wdc dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 18:53:54 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] y2038: Introduce the __ASSUME_TIME64_SYSCALLS define
- References: <20190827173015.24370-1-alistair.francis@wdc.com> <CAKCAbMiYinyQ_Gdcu94rPCm6PNw6hdq+H_dhzeADa89v2z13-A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908271926030.31674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20190830133818.GI9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908301630420.5568@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKCAbMjHbcM=8MvLd2CXA=EyT_iDanzsATMLuiMC=wtgTqOr+A@mail.gmail.com> <20190830170940.GL9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <CAKCAbMjVG9=wPr-U-Hac3R0j_1Ks8ueRe+sBabjROfNnXSQ8JA@mail.gmail.com> <20190830182650.GM9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <871rwwp7dm.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190904125015.GB9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87mufknm8i.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190904181410.5caf6feb@jawa> <87pnkgm2tf.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909041648060.8933@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
* Joseph Myers:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Lukasz Majewski:
>>
>> > There was also a conclusion regarding explicit clearing of the padding
>> > if necessary - kernel shall do it (or to be more precise - kernel will
>> > perform modulo operation of the number passed to it from glibc if
>> > needed).
>>
>> But that's not what the kernel ended up doing, right?
>
> My understanding is that it did - except for the case of compat syscalls
> under 64-bit kernels 5.1.0 through 5.1.4.
Oh!
Then I don't quite get why we are having this conversation at all. The
anonymous bit-field hack should solve this quite nicely if we just say
that the exceptional range of kernels you indicated is too buggy to
support in glibc.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
Florian