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: <1314857296.11447.17.camel@satguru>
Date:	Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:08:03 +0200
From:	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	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>,
	Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 18:14 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 August 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I've added a few people to Cc who are in various stages of the
> process to finalize their upstream kernel ports. It's clearly
> the right decision to have time_t 64-bit eventually, the question
> is how much work is everyone willing to spend in the short run,
> and who is going to test it. In particular, openrisc has just
> been merged, so we should not be changing it any more unless
> there is a serious problem, but if there is not much legacy user
> space with the current ABI yet, it may still be worth switching
> over.

As far as OpenRISC is concerned, this change can still be made now.  I
know who the users of this platform are and, considering the rest of the
libc churn that comes with dropping the legacy syscalls, I can guarantee
that nobody's going to complain.  OpenRISC may be merged but 3.1's not
released yet so there's still a bit of wiggle room to get this done.

/Jonas

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)