Y2038

y2038@lists.linaro.org

2 participants
1137 discussions

Re: [Y2038] [RFD PATCH 1/2] y2038: sound: convert timer to y2038 safe

by Arnd Bergmann

On Friday 17 July 2015 19:50:42 Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:33:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 17 July 2015 14:37:41 Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Yeah, that was where my thinking was going. You should then be able to > > > make the else case expose a 32 bit version under a different name so > > > applications that really wanted to be able to do fallback on old kernels > > > could do so but the default would DTRT. > > > I'm unsure if that would actually help anybody: The new version would > > only be seen for applications that are built with a 64-bit time_t, > > and that requires a new kernel for a number of reasons. It might > > help bridge the window between kernels that have support for basic > > syscalls but not a particular ioctl like this one, but approach so > > far was that I'd just treat that case as a bug and tell people to > > not expect 64-bit time_t in user space to work in all cases until > > we have a kernel that has all drivers converted. > > Yeah, it's definitely a bit niche. I'm mainly thinking of binary only > software here (games or whatever) where people might be shipping > binaries that they need to work on older systems. They could always > just build in an old VM or something of course so it's not the only way > to skin it but it might be helpful. >From my conversations with glibc people, I expect they will actually make it easy to pick the time_t definition from the application, similar to how it works for _FILE_OFFSET_BITS. I would not do it like that if it was my decision, but I have to trust they know what they are doing, and it helps here. Arnd

9 years, 12 months

Re: [Y2038] [RFD PATCH 1/2] y2038: sound: convert timer to y2038 safe

by Arnd Bergmann

On Friday 17 July 2015 14:37:41 Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:26:38PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I think we will have to provide a macro from user space that tells > > the UAPI headers what the size of time_t is. This means that here > > we'd end up with something like > > > #if BITS_PER_TIME_T == BITS_PER_LONG > > #define SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_TREAD _IOW('T', 0x02, int) > > #else > > #define SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_TREAD _IOW('T', 0x15, int) > > #endif > > > this way we'll be able to let user space implicitly do the correct > > setting that matches its timespec format. > > Yeah, that was where my thinking was going. You should then be able to > make the else case expose a 32 bit version under a different name so > applications that really wanted to be able to do fallback on old kernels > could do so but the default would DTRT. I'm unsure if that would actually help anybody: The new version would only be seen for applications that are built with a 64-bit time_t, and that requires a new kernel for a number of reasons. It might help bridge the window between kernels that have support for basic syscalls but not a particular ioctl like this one, but approach so far was that I'd just treat that case as a bug and tell people to not expect 64-bit time_t in user space to work in all cases until we have a kernel that has all drivers converted. Arnd

9 years, 12 months

Re: [Y2038] [RFD PATCH 1/2] y2038: sound: convert timer to y2038 safe

by Arnd Bergmann

On Friday 17 July 2015 14:09:47 Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:59:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > -struct snd_timer_tread { > > > +struct __kernel_snd_timer_tread { > > > int event; > > > - struct timespec tstamp; > > > + struct __kernel_timespec tstamp; > > > unsigned int val; > > > }; > > > Also, __kernel_timespec is defined to be always 64-bit wide. This means > > if we do this change (assuming we drop the #define above), then user space > > will always see the new definition of this structure, and programs > > compiled against the latest header will no longer work on older kernels. > > > Is this what you had in mind? > > > We could decide to do it like this, and we have historically done changes > > to the ioctl interface this way, but I'm not sure if we want to do it > > for all ioctls. > > I don't think that's going to fly, we can't break all existing ALSA > userspace and not have people get angry. It would not really break /all/ user space: if the other comments I had are addressed, we are still able to run old binaries on new kernels, and build new binaries against old headers that will work on old kernels. Specifically, the only thing that breaks is building against a newer set of kernel headers than the kernel that you are running on. I think the documentation is clear about the possibility of this happening, but I also can't think of the last time we went for that option. > > The alternative is to leave the 'timespec' visible here for user space, > > so user programs will see either the old or the new definition of struct > > depending on their timespec definition, and only programs built with > > 64-bit time_t will require new kernels. > > Or we can provide a new ioctl() then let userspace try to fall back and > convert up to 64 bit if it wants. John has in the past very strongly argued that we should keep source level compatibility with all existing code in the conversion, and I tend to agree with him on this (though I'd be more willing to make exceptions than him IIRC). For SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_STATUS, this is automatic because the command number encodes the sizeof(struct snd_timer_status), and the ioctl handler can have code to handle both versions correctly. For SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_TREAD, the command code does not depend on sizeof(time_t), so this is harder to do. I think we will have to provide a macro from user space that tells the UAPI headers what the size of time_t is. This means that here we'd end up with something like #if BITS_PER_TIME_T == BITS_PER_LONG #define SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_TREAD _IOW('T', 0x02, int) #else #define SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_TREAD _IOW('T', 0x15, int) #endif this way we'll be able to let user space implicitly do the correct setting that matches its timespec format. > > > +void snd_timer_notify(struct snd_timer *timer, int event, struct timespec *tstamp) > > > +{ > > > + struct timespec64 tstamp64; > > > + > > > + tstamp64.tv_sec = tstamp->tv_sec; > > > + tstamp64.tv_nsec = tstamp->tv_nsec; > > > + snd_timer_notify64(timer, event, &tstamp64); > > > +} > > > This works, but I'd leave it up to Mark if he'd prefer to do the conversion > > bit by bit and change over all users of snd_timer_notify to use > > snd_timer_notify64, or to move them all at once and leave the function > > name unchanged. > > That's more a question for Takashi than me, this is all generic > userspace stuff that is common to all sound. Right, of course. Arnd

9 years, 12 months

[PATCH 0/6] Introduce 64bit accessors and structures required to address y2038 issues in the posix_clock subsystem

by Baolin Wang

This patch series change the 32-bit time types (timespec/itimerspec) to the 64-bit types (timespec64/itimerspec64), and add new 64bit accessor functions, which are required in order to avoid y2038 issues in the posix_clock subsystem. In order to avoid spamming people too much, I'm only sending the first few patches of the patch series, and left the other patches for later. And if you are interested in the whole patch series, see: https://git.linaro.org/people/baolin.wang/upstream_0627.git Thoughts and feedback would be appreciated. Baolin Wang (6): time: Introduce struct itimerspec64 timekeeping: Introduce current_kernel_time64() security: Introduce security_settime64() time: Introduce do_sys_settimeofday64() time: Introduce timespec64_to_jiffies()/jiffies_to_timespec64() cputime: Introduce cputime_to_timespec64()/timespec64_to_cputime() arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h | 6 +++--- arch/s390/include/asm/cputime.h | 8 ++++---- include/asm-generic/cputime_jiffies.h | 10 +++++----- include/asm-generic/cputime_nsecs.h | 6 +++--- include/linux/cputime.h | 16 +++++++++++++++ include/linux/jiffies.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 5 +++-- include/linux/security.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/time64.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/timekeeping.h | 24 +++++++++++++++++++--- kernel/time/time.c | 28 +++++++++++++++----------- kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 6 +++--- security/commoncap.c | 2 +- security/security.c | 2 +- 14 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) -- 1.7.9.5

9 years, 12 months

Re: [Y2038] [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] y2038: add 64bit time_t support in timeval for 32bit architecture

by Bamvor Zhang Jian

Hi, John On 07/09/2015 04:09 AM, John Stultz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Bamvor Zhang Jian > <bamvor.zhangjian(a)linaro.org> wrote: >> +int get_timeval64(struct timeval64 *tv, >> + const struct __kernel_timeval __user *utv) >> +{ >> + struct __kernel_timeval ktv; >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = copy_from_user(&ktv, utv, sizeof(ktv)); >> + if (ret) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + tv->tv_sec = ktv.tv_sec; >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) >> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT >> + || is_compat_task() >> +#endif > > These sorts of ifdefs are to be avoided inside of functions. > Instead, it seems is_compat_task() should be defined to 0 in the > !CONFIG_COMPAT case, so you can avoid the ifdefs and the compiler can > still optimize it out. I add this ifdef because I got compile failure on arm platform. This file do not include the <linux/compat.h> directly. And in arm64, compat.h is included implicitily. So, I am not sure what I should do here. Include <linux/compat.h> in this file directly or add a this check at the beginning of this file? #ifndef is_compat_task #define is_compat_task() (0) #endif > Otherwise this looks similar to a patch Baolin (cc'ed) has been working on. Yes. regards bamvor > > thanks > -john >

10 years

Delivery Notification, ID 0000186169

by FedEx 2Day A.M.

Dear Customer, This is to confirm that one or more of your parcels has been shipped. Please, open email attachment to print shipment label. Regards, David Mathis, Sr. Station Manager.

10 years

Re: [Y2038] [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] y2038: convert ppdev to 2038 safe

by Arnd Bergmann

On Monday 29 June 2015 22:23:27 Bamvor Zhang Jian wrote: > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h b/include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h > index dc18c5d..d62a47d 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ppdev.h > @@ -74,8 +74,18 @@ struct ppdev_frob_struct { > #define PPSETPHASE _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x94, int) > > /* Set and get port timeout (struct timeval's) */ > -#define PPGETTIME _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x95, struct timeval) > -#define PPSETTIME _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x96, struct timeval) > +/* Force application use 64 time_t ioctl */ > +/* TODO: It is an open question about we should use a __xxx_timeval or an > + * implicit array. > + * replace struct __kernel_timeval with __s32[4] > + * replace struct compat_timeval with __s32[2] > + */ > +#define PPGETTIME PPGETTIME64 > +#define PPSETTIME PPSETTIME64 > +#define PPGETTIME64 _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x95, struct __kernel_timeval) > +#define PPSETTIME64 _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x96, struct __kernel_timeval) > +#define PPGETTIME32 _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x9c, struct __kernel_compat_timeval) > +#define PPSETTIME32 _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x9d, struct __kernel_compat_timeval) As commented before, these definitions should probably not be part of the user-visible header file. The main reason for using an __s64[2] array instead of struct __kernel_timeval is to avoid adding __kernel_timeval: 'timeval' is thoroughly deprecated and we don't want to establish new interfaces with that. In case of this driver, nobody would ever want to change their user space to use a 64-bit __kernel_timeval instead of timeval and explicitly call PPGETTIME64 instead of PPGETTIME, because we are only dealing with an interval here, and a 32-bit second value is sufficient to represent that. Instead, the purpose of your patch is to make the kernel cope with user space that happens to use a 64-bit time_t based definition of 'struct timeval' and passes that to the ioctl. Arnd [re-sent with fixed y2038 list]

10 years

Re: [Y2038] [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] ppdev: add compat ioctl

by John Stultz

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian(a)linaro.org> wrote: > Add compat ioctl in ppdev in order to solve the y2038 issue in > later patch. > This patch simply add pp_do_ioctl to compat_ioctl, because I found > that all the ioctl access the arg as a pointer. > > Signed-off-by: Bamvor Zhang Jian <bamvor.zhangjian(a)linaro.org> > --- > drivers/char/ppdev.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ppdev.c b/drivers/char/ppdev.c > index ae0b42b..9207658 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ppdev.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ppdev.c > @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ > #include <linux/ppdev.h> > #include <linux/mutex.h> > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > +#include <linux/compat.h> > > #define PP_VERSION "ppdev: user-space parallel port driver" > #define CHRDEV "ppdev" > @@ -635,6 +636,11 @@ static long pp_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > return ret; > } > > +static long pp_compat_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > +{ > + return pp_ioctl(file, cmd, (unsigned long)compat_ptr(arg)); > +} > + > static int pp_open (struct inode * inode, struct file * file) > { > unsigned int minor = iminor(inode); > @@ -744,6 +750,9 @@ static const struct file_operations pp_fops = { > .write = pp_write, > .poll = pp_poll, > .unlocked_ioctl = pp_ioctl, > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT > + .compat_ioctl = pp_compat_ioctl, > +#endif Does adding this patch w/o the following patch break 32bit apps using this on 64bit kernels? thanks -john

10 years

Notice to Appear

by District Court

Notice to Appear, You have to appear in the Court on the July 15. Please, prepare all the documents relating to the case and bring them to Court on the specified date. Note: If you do not come, the case will be heard in your absence. You can review complete details of the Court Notice in the attachment. Sincerely, Thomas Dunlap, Court Secretary.

10 years

Courier was unable to deliver the parcel, ID0000743685

by FedEx International MailService

Dear Customer, Your parcel has arrived at June 29. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you. Shipment Label is attached to email. Thank you for choosing FedEx, Fred Huber, FedEx Support Agent.

10 years

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Y2038