2017-11-27 21:51 GMT+01:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>: [...] >> There already is an effort to come up with a new AF_PACKET V4 [1]. >> We should make sure that any new interface does not have the >> Y2038/Y2106 issue. But, if a new version is being developed and >> that subsumes all existing use cases, then there probably is no need >> for another version that is a very small diff to V3. > > Ah, perfect, that's good timing. Adding Björn to Cc here. > Unfortunately, for the Y2038/Y2106 cases, we'll be (as a result of netdevconf discussions) moving the AF_PACKET V4 implementation to a separate, new, address/packet family. >> If adding support for existing applications is useful, another approach >> would be to add a new socket option that changes the semantics for >> the two u32 fields in each of V1, V2 and V3 to hold nsec. Add a single >> check after filling in those structs whether the option is set and, if so, >> overwrite the two fields. >> >> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/737947/ > > I don't think that's necessary. As long as the V4 capabilities are a > superset of V1-V3, we should be able to just require all users to > move to V4 (or later) in the next 89 years, and make sure that they > use unsigned seconds if they care about 2038. > Given that V4 wont be around for AF_PACKET -- at least not in the shape of our patches -- Willem's suggestion is probably a good way forward. > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
