[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3133545.iF2pfcmJbC@wuerfel>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:03:57 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>, achim_leubner@...ptec.com,
JBottomley@...n.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v2] scsi: gdth: replace struct timeval with ktime_get_real_seconds()
On Tuesday 24 November 2015 16:44:07 Alison Schofield wrote:
> struct timeval will overflow on 32-bit systems in y2038 and is being
> removed from the kernel. Replace the use of struct timeval and
> do_gettimeofday() with ktime_get_real_seconds() which provides a 64-bit
> seconds value and is y2038 safe.
>
> gdth driver requires changes in two areas:
>
> 1) gdth_store_event() loads two u32 timestamp fields for ioctl GDTIOCTL_EVENT
>
> These timestamp fields are part of struct gdth_evt_str used for passing
> event data to userspace. At the first instance of an event we do
> (first_stamp=last_stamp="current time"). If that same event repeats,
> we do (last_stamp="current time") AND increment same_count to indicate
> how many times the event has repeated since first_stamp.
>
> This patch replaces the use of timeval and do_gettimeofday() with
> ktime_get_real_seconds() cast to u32 to extend the timestamp fields
> to y2106.
>
> Beyond y2106, the userspace tools (ie. RAID controller monitors) can
> work around the time rollover and this driver would still not need to
> change.
>
> Alternative: The alternative approach is to introduce a new ioctl in gdth
> with the u32 time fields defined as u64. This would require userspace
> changes now, but not in y2106.
>
> 2) gdth_show_info() calculates elapsed time using u32 first_stamp
>
> It is adding events with timestamps to a seq_file. Timestamps are
> calculated as the "current time" minus the first_stamp.
>
> This patch replaces the use of timeval and do_gettimeofday() with
> ktime_get_real_seconds() cast to u32 to calculate the timestamp.
>
> This elapsed time calculation is safe even when the time wraps (beyond
> y2106) due to how unsigned subtraction works. A comment has been added
> to the code to indicate this safety.
>
> Alternative: This piece itself doesn't warrant an alternative, but
> if we do introduce a new structure & ioctl with u64 timestamps, this
> would change accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
--
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