On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:12:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'. > > Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in > user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes > the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with > the system call interface. > > While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change > the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel > ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type. > > In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement > for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution, > i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well, > if anyone thinks we should do that. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > --- > Question: should we also rename 'struct rusage' into 'struct __kernel_rusage' > here, to make them completely unambiguous?
The patch looks ok to me. I must confess I looked into rusage long ago so __kernel_timespec type used in uapi made me nervious at first, but then i found that we've this type defined in time_types.h uapi so userspace should be safe. I also like the idea of __kernel_rusage but definitely on top of the series. Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcu...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list Y2038@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
