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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 15:54:32 -0300
From:   André Almeida <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:,,,, Paul Eggert <>,,,,,,,,
        Arnd Bergmann <>
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