Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM, BjÃrn TÃpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2017-11-27 21:51 GMT+01:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
> [...]
>>> There already is an effort to come up with a new AF_PACKET V4 [1].
>>> We should make sure that any new interface does not have the
>>> Y2038/Y2106 issue. But, if a new version is being developed and
>>> that subsumes all existing use cases, then there probably is no need
>>> for another version that is a very small diff to V3.
>>
>> Ah, perfect, that's good timing. Adding BjÃrn to Cc here.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, for the Y2038/Y2106 cases, we'll be (as a result of
> netdevconf discussions) moving the AF_PACKET V4 implementation to a
> separate, new, address/packet family.

Ok, I see.

>>> If adding support for existing applications is useful, another approach
>>> would be to add a new socket option that changes the semantics for
>>> the two u32 fields in each of V1, V2 and V3 to hold nsec. Add a single
>>> check after filling in those structs whether the option is set and, if so,
>>> overwrite the two fields.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/737947/
>>
>> I don't think that's necessary. As long as the V4 capabilities are a
>> superset of V1-V3, we should be able to just require all users to
>> move to V4 (or later) in the next 89 years, and make sure that they
>> use unsigned seconds if they care about 2038.
>>
>
> Given that V4 wont be around for AF_PACKET -- at least not in the
> shape of our patches -- Willem's suggestion is probably a good way
> forward.

That leaves one question: should we do that now, or wait until some
other reason for a V4 comes up? I don't mind creating another
patch for this, just want to get a feeling of whether the API clutter
is worth it when we have a way out that works until y2106 (at
which point we run into other problems as well).

       Arnd