linux-kernel - Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

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: <20160407121838.GA22098@angband.pl>
Date:	Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:18:38 +0200
From:	Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>,
	Prasun Kapoor <Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>,
	Nathan Lynch <Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
	christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com,
	bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>  v6:
>>  - time_t, __kenel_off_t and other types turned to be 32-bit
>>    for compatibility reasons (after v5 discussion);

Introducing a new arch today with y2038 problems is not a good idea.
Linus said so with appropriately pointy words in 2011.

> What makes you think these "applications that can’t readily be migrated to LP64
> because they were written assuming an ILP32 data model, and that will never
> become suitable for a LP64 data model and will remain locked into ILP32
> operating environments" are more likely to be fixed for y2038 later, than for
> LP64 now?

Such broken applications already have plenty of bogus architecture detection
code so you need porting anyway...

> We're already closer to the (future) y2038 than to the (past) introduction of
> LP64...
>
> These unfixable legacy applications have been spreading through x32 to
> the shiny new arm64 server architecture (does ppc64el also have an ILP32 mode,
> or is it planned)? Lots of resources are spent on maintaining the status quo,
> instead of on fixing the real problems.
          
As an x32 (userland) porter, I can tell you that time_t!=long _did_ cause
non-trivial amounts of work.  But that work is already done (at least in
Debian), so you might as well benefit from it.


-- 
A tit a day keeps the vet away.