On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:42:27PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 02:05:44PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 01:13:07PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: > > > On 2020-06-11 02:46, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > > > > Paul Irofti: > > > > > > > > > This iteration of the diff adds bounds checking for tk_user and moves > > > > > the usertc.c stub to every arch in libc as recommanded by deraadt@. > > > > > It also fixes a gettimeofday issue reported by cheloha@ and tb@. > > > > > > > > Additionally, it changes struct timekeep in an incompatible way. ;-) > > > > A userland built before the addition of tk_nclocks is very unhappy > > > > with a kernel built afterwards. There is no way to compile across > > > > this. You have to (U)pgrade from boot media to install a > > > > ftp.openbsd.org > > > > userland, and then you can re-compile with the new diff. > > > > > > I have not seen this problem and have not built a snapshot to update or go > > > back. What do you mean by very unhappy? Can you show me the exact steps > > > you > > > have done? > > > > > > > Should we already bump major while the diff matures? > > > > > > I am not a fan of this. I don't like bumping something before it is > > > actually > > > used. It is like an errata before a release. > > > > So what if we end at version 200 ? > > > > we've got a full uint32_t for crying out loud, you're not going to run out > > of numbers. > > > > Besides, it's something that's entirely invisible to users, even more so > > than library major/minors. > > This is not about the range available to us. > > If I bump then I will have to also add checks for the revision. > Otherwise what is the point of the bump? And then what? Keep old and > new code around for both revisions? And then, if this endless mail > thread is ever going to be added to the OpenBSD tree, it will contain > workarounds for something that was never in the tree to begin with.
Yeah, you do check for the revision, if it's the same, then you use the timecounter. If it's not, you revert to the syscall. End of story. Right now, you can't even bump it if you need, because there is no code that checks it in the libc, thus is you tweak kernel parts, things *will* break. You'd better have the version check in libc before you even consider committing this!
