On 07.12.21 17:00, Bezdeka, Florian (T RDA IOT SES-DE) wrote: > Hi, > > when we initially collected all y2038 affected syscalls we putted the > select() call on the list [1], which is one of the 4 calls that are > still missing. > > Before starting implementing the missing y2038 safe syscall today, I > noticed that this call is not affected at all. There is a struct > timeval inside the signature, yes, but it holds a relative time (= time > interval) and not an absolute time (=point in time). > > The signature: > COBALT_SYSCALL(select, primary, > (int nfds, > fd_set __user *u_rfds, > fd_set __user *u_wfds, > fd_set __user *u_xfds, > struct __kernel_old_timeval __user *u_tv)); > > Are I'm missing something? > > Linux has no select64 as well, so I assume I'm right ;-) > > If no complains come up I would remove select() from the list of > affected syscalls. That would lower the number of non-implemented y2038 > calls to 3. >
Sounds consistent to me. Jan > Best regards, > Florian > > > [1] > https://gitlab.com/Xenomai/xenomai-hacker-space/-/wikis/y2038/Y2038_Affected_Syscalls > -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
