On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ok, I see. >>> 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. That leaves one question: should we do that now, or wait until some other reason for a V4 comes up? I don't mind creating another patch for this, just want to get a feeling of whether the API clutter is worth it when we have a way out that works until y2106 (at which point we run into other problems as well). 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
