On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 5:08 PM Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:43:00 +0200, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> No, I don't think so. The musl translator is to translate between the
> time64 ioctl structures and the old time32 ones for the sake of
> executing on an old kernel. Up til now, it has been broken comparably
> to how 32-bit binaries running in compat mode on a 64-bit kernel were
> broken: the code in musl translated the time64 structure to (and back
> from) the time32 one assuming the intended padding. But the
> application was using the actual kernel uapi struct where the padding
> was (and still is) illogical. Thus, nothing was built with the wrong
> ABI; it's only the musl-internal translation logic that was wrong (and
> only pre-time64 kernels are affected).
>
> The attached patch should fix it, I think.
>
> + int adj = BYTE_ORDER==BIG_ENDIAN ? 4 : 0;
> + if (dir==W) {
> + memcpy(old+68, new+72+adj, 4);
> + memcpy(old+72, new+72+4+2*adj, 4);
I think that should be "new+72+4+3*adj": the "2*adj" would
be what the code does already for the originally intended
format.
Arnd
