netdev - Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 04/11] posix timers:Introduce the 64bit methods with timespec64 type for k

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: <20150422101114.GA5527@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:11:14 +0200
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>, pang.xunlei@...aro.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, cl@...ux.com,
	heenasirwani@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, ahh@...gle.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, pjt@...gle.com,
	riel@...hat.com, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, rth@...ddle.net,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux390@...ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 04/11] posix timers:Introduce the 64bit methods
 with timespec64 type for k_clock structure

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So we could save one translation step if we implement new syscalls
> which have a scalar nsec interface instead of the timespec/timeval
> cruft and let user space do the translation to whatever it wants.

+1

> I personally would welcome such an interface as it makes user space
> programming simpler. Just (re)arming a periodic nanosleep based on
> absolute expiry time is horrible stupid today:

Jup.

> Thoughts?

Current user space example: The linuxptp programs are doing ns64 to
timespec conversions to call into the kernel, which then does timespec
to ns64 to talk to the hardware.  I would bet that most (all?) use
cases are better served with 64 bit nanosecond system calls.

Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html