On Sat, 2024-06-15 at 16:52 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > Hi, Arnd, > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 3:53 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024, at 05:11, Huacai Chen wrote: > > > On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 11:39 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 11, 2024, at 16:28, Huacai Chen wrote: > > > > > On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 8:17 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > CONFIG_COMPAT_32BIT_TIME is equally affected here. On riscv32 > > > > this is the only allowed configuration, while on others (arm32 > > > > or x86-32 userland) you can turn off COMPAT_32BIT_TIME on > > > > both 32-bit kernel and on 64-bit kernels with compat mode. > > > I don't know too much detail, but I think riscv32 can do something > > > similar to arm32 and x86-32, or we can wait for Xuerui to improve > > > seccomp. But there is no much time for loongarch because the Debian > > > loong64 port is coming soon. > > > > What I meant is that the other architectures only work by > > accident if COMPAT_32BIT_TIME is enabled and statx() gets > > blocked, but then they truncate the timestamps to the tim32 > > range, which is not acceptable behavior. Actually mips64 is > > in the same situation because it also only supports 32-bit > > timestamps in newstatat(), despite being a 64-bit > > architecture with a 64-bit time_t in all other syscalls. > We can only wait for the seccomp side to be fixed now? Or we can get > this patch upstream for LoongArch64 at the moment, and wait for > seccomp to fix RISCV32 (and LoongArch32) in future? I'm wondering why not just introduce a new syscall or extend statx with a new flag, as we've discussed many times. They have their own disadvantages but better than this, IMO. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
