linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rusage: allow 64-bit times ru_utime/ru

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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:11:21 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rusage: allow 64-bit times ru_utime/ru_stime


* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

> Sure, no problem. Do you have an opinion on the question I raised in the
> first patch [1], i.e. whether we actually want this to be done this way in the
> kernel, or one of the other approaches I described there?

So this looks like the most forward looking variant:

> a) deprecate the wait4() and getrusage() system calls, and create
>    a set of kernel interfaces based around a newly defined structure that
>    could solve multiple problems at once, e.g. provide more fine-grained
>    timestamps. The C library could then implement the posix interfaces
>    on top of the new system calls.

... but given the pretty long propagation time of new ABIs, is this a good 
solution? What would the limitations/trade-offs be on old-ABI systems?

Thanks,

	Ingo