linux-kernel - Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers

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]

Message-ID: <4E5D1153.5030908@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:35:31 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers

On 08/30/2011 05:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering about the time_t changes: given that we are still adding
> new 32 bit architectures, should we change the asm-generic API as well
> to use 64 bit time_t by default (with fallbacks for the existing ones)?
> 
> If you are adding support for these in x32 already, we could use the
> same code for regular 32 bit architectures.
> 

It seems absolutely boggling insane that we're introducing new
architectures with no legacy whatsoever and use 32-bit time_t on those.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/