linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] vfs: support statx(..., NULL, AT_EMPTY

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]

Message-ID: <b60a61b8c9171a6106d50346ecd7fba1cfc4dcb0.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 01:30:14 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org, 
 "Andreas K. Huettel"
	 <dilfridge@...too.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Huacai Chen
	 <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, Alexander Viro
	 <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, 
	loongarch@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] vfs: support statx(..., NULL, AT_EMPTY_PATH, ...)

On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 10:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And should we add stat_time64, fstat_time64, and fstatat_time64 to stop
> > using statx on 32-bit platforms too as it's disgusting?
> 
> We already have 'stat64' for 32-bit platforms. We have had it for over
> 25 years - it predates not only the kernel git tree, it predates the
> BK tree too.
> 
> I think stat64 was introduced in 2.3.34. That is literally last century.

struct stat64 {

// ...

    int     st_atime;   /* Time of last access.  */
    unsigned int    st_atime_nsec;
    int     st_mtime;   /* Time of last modification.  */
    unsigned int    st_mtime_nsec;
    int     st_ctime;   /* Time of last status change.  */
    unsigned int    st_ctime_nsec;
    unsigned int    __unused4;
    unsigned int    __unused5;
};

> Anybody who tries to make this about 2037 is being actively dishonest.

> Why are people even discussing this pointless thing?

So are we going to drop 32-bit support before 2037?  Then yes it'd be
pointless and I can live (even easier) without 32-bit things.

Otherwise, we still have 13 years before 2037 but this does not render
the thing pointless.  We still have to provide a 64-bit time stamp soon
or later.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University