linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mn10300: time: Provide 64-bit persistent clock time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:24:32 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Xunlei Pang <xlpang@....com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>,
	linux-am33-list@...hat.com, Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mn10300: time: Provide 64-bit persistent clock time

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Xunlei Pang <xlpang@....com> wrote:
> From: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>
>
> As part of addressing the "y2038 problem" for in-kernel uses,
> convert update_persistent_clock() to update_persistent_clock64(),
> read_persistent_clock() to read_persistent_clock64() using
> timespec64 for MN10300.

The arch changes look ok.

> Add the common weak version of update_persistent_clock() to make
> the compiler happy, since we don't have any update_persistent_clock()
> defined for MN10300 after converting it to update_persistent_clock64().

So it wasn't immediately obvious why this was needed (compiler
unhappiness isn't really a good explanation). Looking at it, it seems
that the weak update_persistent_clock64() wants a
update_persistent_clock() call to exist (which probably should have
been added when the weak update_persistent_clock64 was added). So it
looks like even if the arch defines a  update_persistent_clock64(),
the weak one still throws a undefined symbol compiler error, right?

The weak update_persistent_clock() bit should probably be added in a
separate patch,  since its not really tied to this arch change (really
any arch that switches to update_persistent_clock64 would have this
issue, no?).

thanks
-john
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/