On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 12:55:47PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2023, at 12:29, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 04:25:09PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > >> > >> * Use __kernel_timespec as timespec > >> * Use 64bit time_t based struct timeval > >> * Disable gettimeofday syscall completely for 32bit platforms > >> * And disable the gettimeofday_bad1/2 test case too > > > > When you say "disable", you mean "remap", right ? Or do you mean > > "break in 2023 code that was expected to break only in 2038 after > > clock_gettime() has been supported for a very long time, so both > time() and gettimeofday() can be trivial wrappers around that. OK, that's what I wanted to clarify. I understood "drop" in the sense of, well, "drop" :-) > Nothing really should be using the timezone argument, so I'd > just ignore that in nolibc. (it's a little trickier for /sbin/init > setting the initial timezone, but I hope we can ignore that here). Yes I'm fine with this approach. > clock_gettime() as a function call that takes a timespec argument > in turn should be a wrapper around either sys_clock_gettime64 (on > 32-bit architectures) or sys_clock_gettime_old() (on 64-bit > architectures, or as a fallback on old 32-bit kernels after > clock_gettime64 fails). Sounds good to me. > On normal libc implementations, the low-level > sys_clock_gettime64() and sys_clock_gettime_old(), whatever > they are named, would call vdso first and then fall back > to the syscall, but I don't think that's necessary for nolibc. Indeed, we don't exploit the VDSO here since it's essentially useful for performance and that's not what we're seeking. > I'd define them the same as the kernel, with > sys_clock_gettime64() taking a __kernel_timespec, and > sys_clock_gettime_old() takeing a __kernel_old_timespec. Sounds good, thanks Arnd! Willy
