On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 4:55 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. We should move things forward, in any way. :) Huacai > > -- > Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx> > School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University >
