From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753217AbdGCKXt (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 06:23:49 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:42764 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752514AbdGCKXq (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 06:23:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:23:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Arnd Bergmann cc: Deepa Dinamani , Al Viro , Linux Kernel Mailing List , John Stultz , Nicolas Pitre , y2038 Mailman List , Linux FS-devel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Isolate time_t data types for clock/timer syscalls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20170624184508.21500-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> <20170626023525.GY10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Al Viro wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > >>> The series aims at isolating data conversions of time_t based structures: > >>> struct timespec and struct itimerspec at user space boundaries. > >>> This helps to later change the underlying types to handle y2038 changes > >>> to these. > >> > >> Nice... A few questions: > >> > >> * what about setitimer(2)? Right now that's the only remaining user of > >> get_compat_itimerval(); similar for getitimer(2) and put_compat_itimerval(). > > > > We do not plan to support these beyond y2038 on 32 bit systems. > > timer_settime() and timer_gettime() are considered to be replacements > > for these, respectively. > > > > There is also going to be a cleanup of timeval/ timespec/ time_t data > > types and apis after the new syscalls are ready. > > At that time I might choose to get rid of these itimerval apis. I'm > > not sure yet. > > I see that internally, alarm/getitimer/setitimer all use ktime_t, so > one possible solution would be to push down the use of ktime_t > into the callers and do both the conversion and range check in the > user copy function. We still can decide to not support the itimer API with the new y2038 ready syscalls. Actually there is no real need to do so because the itimer interfaces are relative and never absolute. Keeping relative time limited to 68 years from now should be good enough :) Thanks, tglx