On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I decided against using LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS to conditionally compile
>>>> legacy time syscalls such as sys_nanosleep because this will need to
>>>> enclose compat_sys_nanosleep as well. So, defining it as
>>>>
>>>> config LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS
>>>> def_bool 64BIT || !64BIT_TIME
>>>>
>>>> will not include compat_sys_nanosleep. We will instead need a new config to
>>>> exclusively mark legacy syscalls.
>>>
>>> Do you mean we would need to do this separately for native and compat
>>> syscalls, and have yet another option, like LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS
>>> and LEGACY_TIME_COMPAT_SYSCALLS, to cover all cases? I would
>>> think that CONFIG_COMPAT_32BIT_TIME handles all the compat versions,
>>> while CONFIG_LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS handles all the native ones.
>>
>> I meant sys_nanosleep would be covered by LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS, but
>> compat_sys_nanosleep would be covered by CONFIG_COMPAT_32BIT_TIME
>> along with other compat syscalls.
>> So, if we define the LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS as
>>
>>
>> "This controls the compilation of the following system calls:
>> time, stime, gettimeofday, settimeofday, adjtimex, nanosleep,
>> alarm, getitimer,
>> setitimer, select, utime, utimes, futimesat, and
>> {old,new}{l,f,}stat{,64}.
>> These all pass 32-bit time_t arguments on 32-bit architectures and
>> are replaced by other interfaces (e.g. posix timers and clocks, statx).
>> C libraries implementing 64-bit time_t in 32-bit architectures have to
>> implement the handles by wrapping around the newer interfaces.
>> New architectures should not explicitly enable this."
>>
>> This would not be really true as compat interfaces have nothing to do
>> with this config.
>>
>> I was proposing that we could have LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS config, but
>> then have all these "deprecated" syscalls be enclosed within this,
>> compat or not.
>> This will also mean that we will have to come up representing these
>> syscalls in the syscall header files.
>> This can be a separate patch and this series can be merged as is if
>> everyone agrees.
>
> I think doing this separately would be good, I don't see any interdependency
> with the other patches, we just need to decide what we want in the long
> run.
Right. There are three options:
1. Use two configs to identify which syscalls need not be supported by
new architectures.
In this case it makes sense to say LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS and
COMPAT_32BIT_TIME both need to be disabled for new architectures. And,
I can reword the config to what you mention below.
2. Make the LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS eliminate non y2038 safe syscalls
mentioned below only.
In this case only the native and compat functions of the below
mentioned syscalls need to be identified by the config. I like this
option as this clearly identifies which syscalls are deprecated and do
not have a 64 bit counterpart. Not all architectures need to support
turning this off.
3. If we don't need either 1 or 2, then we could stick with what we
have today in the series as CONFIG_64BIT_TIME will be deleted and they
only need #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT.
Let me know if anyone prefers something else.
> I agree my text that you cited doesn't capture the situation correctly,
> as this is really about the obsolete system calls that take 64-bit time_t
> arguments on architectures that are converted to allow 64-bit time_t
> for non-obsolete system calls.
>
> Maybe it's better to just reword this to
>
> "This controls the compilation of the following system calls:
> time, stime, gettimeofday, settimeofday, adjtimex, nanosleep,
> alarm, getitimer,
> setitimer, select, utime, utimes, futimesat, and {old,new}{l,f,}stat{,64}.
> These are all replaced by other interfaces (e.g. posix timers and clocks,
> statx) on architectures that got converted from 32-bit time_t to
> 64-bit time_t.
> C libraries implementing 64-bit time_t in 32-bit architectures have to
> implement the handles by wrapping around the newer interfaces.
> New architectures should not explicitly enable this."
>
> That would clarify that it's not about the compat system calls, while
> also allowing the two options to be set independently.
-Deepa
