linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/20] futex: Implement sys_futex

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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?