Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
On Mon, Dec 05 2022, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 11:00 +0100, Ola x Nilsson wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 30 2022, Richard Purdie wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 17:56 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> > > On 30/11/2022 16:46:17+, Ross Burton wrote: >> > > > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:20, Richard Purdie via >> > > > lists.yoctoproject.org >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > * Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function >> > > > > > > calls >> > > > > > > to ensure they're not being used? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable some >> > > > > > syscalls? >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. >> > > > >> > > > Some time ago I filed >> > > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 as Debian >> > > > has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions >> > > > are used. I imagine the same logic could be used to check for 32- >> > > > bit time_t use. >> > >> > That sounds interesting and something we should probably look into for >> > both issues... >> >> I have a working sanity checker that checks for any glibc functions >> affected by -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 or -D_TIME_BITS=64. >> The INSANE_SKIP functionality needs some more polish but I'd be happy to >> contribute it. >> >> Some libraries use both 32 and 64 bit APIs to glibc and needs exceptions >> in the checker. >> >> I have not run any world builds with this checker, I've focused on the >> recipes we actually use so far so we could get to a testable system. My >> biggest worry at the moment is rust, I know to little to know if it is >> an actual problem and how to fix it. >> >> I would like to be part of any "y2038 team" for Yocto. > > That does sound useful, perhaps sharing it as an RFC patch might be a > good place to start? We might be able to run one of the autobuilder > world targets against it, see how it looks for our core recipes? That works for me. I've started preparing a patch for oe-core. -- Ola x Nilsson -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1688): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1688 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95361985/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 11:00 +0100, Ola x Nilsson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30 2022, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 17:56 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > On 30/11/2022 16:46:17+, Ross Burton wrote: > > > > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:20, Richard Purdie via > > > > lists.yoctoproject.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > * Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function > > > > > > > calls > > > > > > > to ensure they're not being used? > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable some > > > > > > syscalls? > > > > > > > > > > I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. > > > > > > > > Some time ago I filed > > > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 as Debian > > > > has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions > > > > are used. I imagine the same logic could be used to check for 32- > > > > bit time_t use. > > > > That sounds interesting and something we should probably look into for > > both issues... > > I have a working sanity checker that checks for any glibc functions > affected by -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 or -D_TIME_BITS=64. > The INSANE_SKIP functionality needs some more polish but I'd be happy to > contribute it. > > Some libraries use both 32 and 64 bit APIs to glibc and needs exceptions > in the checker. > > I have not run any world builds with this checker, I've focused on the > recipes we actually use so far so we could get to a testable system. My > biggest worry at the moment is rust, I know to little to know if it is > an actual problem and how to fix it. > > I would like to be part of any "y2038 team" for Yocto. That does sound useful, perhaps sharing it as an RFC patch might be a good place to start? We might be able to run one of the autobuilder world targets against it, see how it looks for our core recipes? Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1687): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1687 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95361985/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
On Wed, Nov 30 2022, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 17:56 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> On 30/11/2022 16:46:17+, Ross Burton wrote: >> > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:20, Richard Purdie via >> > lists.yoctoproject.org >> > wrote: >> > > > > * Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function calls >> > > > > to ensure they're not being used? >> > > > >> > > > Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable some >> > > > syscalls? >> > > >> > > I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. >> > >> > Some time ago I filed >> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 as Debian >> > has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions >> > are used. I imagine the same logic could be used to check for 32- >> > bit time_t use. > > That sounds interesting and something we should probably look into for > both issues... I have a working sanity checker that checks for any glibc functions affected by -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 or -D_TIME_BITS=64. The INSANE_SKIP functionality needs some more polish but I'd be happy to contribute it. Some libraries use both 32 and 64 bit APIs to glibc and needs exceptions in the checker. I have not run any world builds with this checker, I've focused on the recipes we actually use so far so we could get to a testable system. My biggest worry at the moment is rust, I know to little to know if it is an actual problem and how to fix it. I would like to be part of any "y2038 team" for Yocto. -- Ola x Nilsson -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1686): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1686 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95361985/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 17:56 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 30/11/2022 16:46:17+, Ross Burton wrote: > > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:20, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org > > wrote: > > > > > * Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function calls > > > > > to ensure they're not being used? > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable some > > > > syscalls? > > > > > > I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. > > > > Some time ago I filed > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 as Debian > > has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions > > are used. I imagine the same logic could be used to check for 32- > > bit time_t use. That sounds interesting and something we should probably look into for both issues... > > > > We can simply disable COMPAT_32BIT_TIME in the kernel config. That would cause runtime issues but not build time linking ones? Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1679): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1679 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95361985/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
On 30/11/2022 16:46:17+, Ross Burton wrote: > On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:20, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org > wrote: > >>> * Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function calls > >>> to ensure they're not being used? > >> > >> Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable some > >> syscalls? > > > > I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. > > Some time ago I filed https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 > as Debian has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions > are used. I imagine the same logic could be used to check for 32-bit time_t > use. > We can simply disable COMPAT_32BIT_TIME in the kernel config. > Ross > > > -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1678): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1678 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95361985/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:20, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>> * Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function calls >>> to ensure they're not being used? >> >> Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable some >> syscalls? > > I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. Some time ago I filed https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 as Debian has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions are used. I imagine the same logic could be used to check for 32-bit time_t use. Ross -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1677): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1677 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95361985/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
