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  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]
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:37:53 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     andrealmeid@...labora.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        dvhart@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        krisman@...labora.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        libc-alpha@...rceware.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
        dave@...olabs.net, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] futex: Implement sys_futex_waitv()

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 04:07:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(futex_waitv, struct futex_waitv __user *, waiters,
> +		unsigned int, nr_futexes, unsigned int, flags,
> +		struct __kernel_timespec __user *, timo)

So I utterly detest timespec.. it makes no sense what so ever.

Can't we just, for new syscalls, simply use a s64 nsec argument and call
it a day?

Thomas, Arnd ?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists