[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071107221200.f5560df0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:12:00 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: lkml@...idb.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drepper@...hat.com,
mtk-manpages@....net
Subject: Re: compat_sys_times() bogus until jiffies >= 0.
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:36:08 +1100 Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > Yup. But userspace will already have a fit if either the start or end time
> > advanced into the glibc-thought-that-was-an-error range.
>
> Not nearly as much of a fit. The effect on x86 is that values between
> -4095 and -1 are reported as -1, so the end-start difference will be
> out by less than 41 seconds. That's not nearly as dramatic as a
> difference of 21 million seconds (over 16 years). :)
>
> I really think that wrapping at 0x7fffffff makes the situation worse,
> not better.
>
Sure.
So we need to do what you say: never return an error from sys_times() and
change glibc to not perform error-interpretation on sys_times() return
values and recommend that people bypass libc and go direct to the syscall
so they'll work correctly on older glibc. Lovely.
I wonder what happens with things like F_GETOWN, shmat() and lseek(/dev/mem)
on x86 (things which use force_successful_syscall_return()). According
to the comment in include/linux/ptrace.h, glibc should be special-casing
these.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists