Hi Thomas, On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:31:01AM +0100, Dr. Thomas Orgis wrote: > Am Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:06:33 +0100 > schrieb Alejandro Colomar <alx@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > It seems your suspicion was right. Someone decided to borrow some time, > > according to the commit message that changed that code in glibc: > > > We should document the change. If anyone wants to send a patch, I'll > > review it. I won't write it myself, because I'm not an expert in > > compatibility code between 32 and 64 bits, so I prefer if someone more > > expert makes sure the documentation is correct. > > Florian? Seems to be the best qualified. As a user, a question for me > is if the specific macros deciding for the 32 bit field should be in > the man page or not, as they seem to be an implementation detail that > one cannot rely on. I guess I need to do a check like sizeof(time_t) > > sizeof(tv_sec)? And then just assume unsigned type? It is a hack, I > understand. So any use will be hacky. Hmmm, this reminds me of timespec(3type). Maybe we can document it similarly here. Feel free to inspire on that page for a patch (you or Florian). > > If you show some code, we can have a look at it. :) > > Not much to show. It is semi-abandoned code in simpleinit-msb that > called time() directly on tv_sec. I switched that to gettimeofday() and > kept the same level of error handling … which is none. My function > detects if the assignment to tv_sec changed the time_t value and > returns an error, but the caller code is inside void functions and > doesn't have an error handling path. > > The effect will be broken lastlog entries in a few decades. The > unsigned int extension moves that a bit further back. Thanks for the details! Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
