linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/23] [RFC] y2038: itimer: use ktime

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:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 23:30:58 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
cc:     y2038@...ts.linaro.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/23] [RFC] y2038: itimer: use ktime_t internally

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Avoid the intermediate step going from timeval to timespec64 to
> ktime_t and back by using ktime_t throughout the code.
> 
> I was going back and forth between the two implementations.
> This patch is optional: if we want it, it could be folded into
> the patch converting to itimerspec64.
> 
> On an arm32 build, this version actually produces 10% larger
> code than the timespec64 version, while on x86-64 it's the
> same as before, and the number of source lines stays the
> same as well.

Right. For 32bit without a native 64/32 division this is going to be more
text and I'm not really convinvced that this buys us anything.

Thanks,

	tglx