Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time_t

[Alistair Francis]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:08 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:47 AM André Almeida
> <andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > #if defined(__i386__) || __TIMESIZE == 32
> > # define NR_gettime64 __NR_clock_gettime64
> > #else
> > # define NR_gettime64 __NR_clock_gettime
> > #endif
> >
> > struct timespec64 {
> >         long long tv_sec;       /* seconds */
> >         long long tv_nsec;      /* nanoseconds */
> > };
> >
> > int gettime64(clock_t clockid, struct timespec64 *tv)
> > {
> >         return syscall(NR_gettime64, clockid, tv);
> > }
> >
> > Then we can just use &timeout at __NR_futex_time64 for 32bit arch and at
> > __NR_futex for 64bit arch.
>
> This is still broken when you disable CONFIG_COMPAT_32BIT_TIME,
> which disables all system calls that take time32 arguments.
>
> > This might be a simpler solution to the problem that you are facing but
> > I'm not entirely sure. Also, futex's selftests do use the timeout
> > argument and I think that they also won't compile in 32-bit RISC-V, so
> > maybe we can start from there so we can actually test the timeout
> > argument and check if it's working.
>
> I would love to see the wrapper that Alistair wrote as part of some kernel
> uapi header provided to user space. futex is used by tons of applications,
> and we never had a library abstraction for it, so everyone has to do these
> by hand, and they all get them slightly wrong in different ways.
>
> We normally don't do this in kernel headers, but I think the benefits
> would be far greater compared to today's situation.

I'm happy to prepare a patch, if others are on board with it being accepted.

Alistair

>
>       Arnd