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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 15:54:32 -0300 From: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: dave@...olabs.net, libc-alpha@...rceware.org, dvhart@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com, kernel@...labora.com, krisman@...labora.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] futex: Implement sys_futex_waitv() Às 11:49 de 16/09/21, Thomas Gleixner escreveu: > On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 10:34, Paul Eggert wrote: > >> On 9/15/21 8:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> 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? >> >> This would stop working in the year 2262. Not a good idea. > > Make it u64 and it stops in 2552, i.e. 584 years from now which is > plenty. Lot's of the kernel internal timekeeping will stop working at > that point, so that interface is the least of my worries. And TBH, my > worries about the Y2552 problem are extremly close to zero. > What do we win by using u64 instead of timespec? Or what's so bad about timespec?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists