linux-kernel - Re: PATCH [3/n]: Add __snseconds_t and __SNSECONDS_T

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMe9rOrRdj_ns=rkonB2BwgmZa3KHBHTQQCv0bkH8PQ2UMXtHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:19:44 -0700
From:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:	Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH [3/n]: Add __snseconds_t and __SNSECONDS_T_TYPE

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu> wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 01:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> What is the real consequence of using long long on tv_nsec,
>> except for not POSIX compliant? Will it lead to wrong code?
>
> It would break applications that do anything like this:
>
>  struct timespec t;
>  long *p = &t->tv_nsec;
>
> Such applications work fine now and conform to POSIX, but would

GCC will complain about "incompatible pointer type".

> either not compile or (worse) might compile and do the
> wrong thing, if tv_nsec were wider than 'long'.

We had a discussion on Linux kernel mailing list:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/8/408

We thought it was OK to have long long on tv_nsec.

-- 
H.J.
--
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/