On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:58:38 AM CEST Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi all,
I have produced a fourth draft of what will eventually become the Y2038 design document:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign?rev=83
Relative to the previous draft:
the scope clarifies that *only* Y2038 is considered, and no other doomsday such as Y2106 or Y9999;
all types directly or indirectly derived from time_t are now listed;
all APIs using these types are now listed;
all functions which use time_t internally are now listed;
also listed are types and APIs related to time but which are Y2038-safe (even though they might be unsafe for some other doomsday, e.g. struct rpc_timeval being Y2106-unsafe).
As always, comments welcome.
I've cross-checked your list of data structures with the one I have for the kernel at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HCYwHXxs48TsTb6IGUduNjQnmfRvMPzCN6T_...
I noticed 'struct sysinfo' as another interface that holds a time, even though this is documented as 'long' and I concluded that we won't need to change it, that should probably be documented.
'struct rusage' is also interesting, as there is no overflow in 2038, but instead it could overflow on large machines (hundreds of CPUs) with very long-running tasks (months), so I'm unsure how to treat that from the kernel side. It's also one of very few kernel interfaces using 'timeval' rather than 'timespec' (we generally replaced the other ones). My current kernel patch series changes rusage by using 64-bit fields for everything, with the intention of having the same binary layout for 32-bit and 64-bit processes, and reusing the 64-bit syscall entry point for compat mode (running 32-bit tasks on a 64-bit kernel). Does that work for you?
I think we should expand the ioctl section a bit: I can do most of it in the kernel, but need help from glibc for a few things in which we need to agree on calling conventions. Here is what I'd suggest having in the document, feel free to take that into your document or edit as you wish:
== IOCTLs and Y2038 ==
Some Linux IOCTLs may be Y2038-unsafe, or use types defined by glibc that do not match the kernel internal types. Known important cases are:
- An ioctl command number is defined using the _IOR/_IOW/_IORW macros by the kernel with a structure whose size changes based on glibc's time_t. The kernel can handle these transparently by implementing handlers for both command numbers with the correct structure format.
- The binary ABI changes based on the glibc time_t type, but the command number does not change. In this case, the kernel header files defining the data structure will check the "__USE_TIME_BITS64" macro [do we need a new macro for the kernel headers?] to provide a different command number for the new data structure layout. glibc will define this macro at an appropriate location [where?] to make it visible before including kernel header files.
- An ioctl command passes time information in a structure that is not based on time_t but another integer type that does not get changed. The kernel header files will provide both a new structure layout and command number when "__USE_TIME_BITS64" is set.
[I can find examples for ioctl commands in each of those categories if needed.]
== Socket options ==
Like ioctl(), setsockopt()/getsockopt() has a few interfaces that are passing time data:
SO_TIMESTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMPNS/SO_TIMESTAMPING: These enable the timestamping infrastructure for a socket, which will consecutively return data to user space using "cmsg" data on the socket. The kernel does not know the layout of 'struct timespec' and 'struct timeval' when filling the cmsg data, so we need to define new binary values for the three flags, which then get used if __USE_TIME_BITS64 is set.
SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO: These pass a 'struct timeval' and a length. Assuming that the 'optlen' argument of the setsockopt syscall always matches the size of 'struct timeval', the kernel will be able to access the data in the same format that was passed by glibc. [alternatively, we could handle this the same way as SO_TIMESTAMP*, using new numbers for the flags].
[end quote]
Regarding the "Support for non-Y2038-safe kernels" section, I'm not sure if that can work at all: A kernel that does not have the appropriate system calls will also not have the handlers for a lot of the ioctl commands and possibly other interfaces that rely on a specific structure layout. If we can instead enforce that __USE_TIME_BITS64 is only set with a minimal version of kernel headers and that it implies binary compatibility with no older kernel version, we could avoid those problems.
On your note "The implementation needs further thinking about, as application code defining _TIME_BITS=64 and gets built against new kernel headers and old GLIBC headers, then GLIBC will use 32-bit time_t and kernel will expect 64-bit time_t, and there is no way to ensure detection of this case.", I think that is covered by having the kernel headers check __USE_TIME_BITS64 instead of _TIME_BITS=64, as I described above.
Arnd
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Regarding the "Support for non-Y2038-safe kernels" section, I'm not sure if that can work at all: A kernel that does not have the appropriate system calls will also not have the handlers for a lot of the ioctl commands and possibly other interfaces that rely on a specific structure layout. If we can instead enforce that __USE_TIME_BITS64
Maybe it's hard for ioctls, but I see no reason it shouldn't work for applications using normal non-ioctl glibc interfaces, with runtime fallbacks in glibc such as have been used for plenty of previous kernel features.
Of course eventually we remove support for the older kernels - when they are no longer on the list at https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html unless something comes up like the issue with people expecting to use new glibc on old virtualization solutions only supporting 2.6.32 kernels - but it would be good for people and distributions to be using / testing _TIME_BITS=64 before they reach the point of ceasing to support any older kernels.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:30:10 PM CEST Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Regarding the "Support for non-Y2038-safe kernels" section, I'm not sure if that can work at all: A kernel that does not have the appropriate system calls will also not have the handlers for a lot of the ioctl commands and possibly other interfaces that rely on a specific structure layout. If we can instead enforce that __USE_TIME_BITS64
Maybe it's hard for ioctls, but I see no reason it shouldn't work for applications using normal non-ioctl glibc interfaces, with runtime fallbacks in glibc such as have been used for plenty of previous kernel features.
Of course eventually we remove support for the older kernels - when they are no longer on the list at https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html unless something comes up like the issue with people expecting to use new glibc on old virtualization solutions only supporting 2.6.32 kernels - but it would be good for people and distributions to be using / testing _TIME_BITS=64 before they reach the point of ceasing to support any older kernels.
Testing is a good point, we crearly don't want to force people to give up support for older kernels in their glibc binaries in order to be able to build with _TIME_BITS=64.
At the same time I'd be worried about users building a binary against a new libc with _TIME_BITS=64 and then running into data corruption because they are accidentally executing the binaries on kernels that interpret the some ABI differently.
We can avoid most of the problems if building with _TIME_BITS=64 has no effect unless both glibc and the kernel headers are new enough to provide the definitions for 64-bit time_t. That way we can at least ensure that calling an ioctl command or setsockopt with an incompatible ABI will result in an error code rather than wrong data.
Arnd
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
We can avoid most of the problems if building with _TIME_BITS=64 has no effect unless both glibc and the kernel headers are new enough to provide the definitions for 64-bit time_t. That way we can at least ensure that calling an ioctl command or setsockopt with an incompatible ABI will result in an error code rather than wrong data.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with requiring new kernel headers to build and use glibc than with requiring a new kernel at runtime for _TIME_BITS=64 to work. New kernel headers are one of the easiest things to use when building glibc, since we have the --with-headers option. (In fact right now the headers requirement (3.2) is newer than the runtime requirement (2.6.32) on x86_64 / x86.)
(_TIME_BITS=64 should of course be an OS-independent API, supported for all glibc configurations. Obviously exactly what Hurd does is up to the Hurd maintainers, as probably is fixing Hurd to keep it working with _TIME_BITS=64, but _TIME_BITS=64 should clearly enable 64-bit time_t for it even if some underlying Y2038-safety is missing. NaCl already has 64-bit time_t so _TIME_BITS=64 would have no effect there.)
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:19:36 PM CEST Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
We can avoid most of the problems if building with _TIME_BITS=64 has no effect unless both glibc and the kernel headers are new enough to provide the definitions for 64-bit time_t. That way we can at least ensure that calling an ioctl command or setsockopt with an incompatible ABI will result in an error code rather than wrong data.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with requiring new kernel headers to build and use glibc than with requiring a new kernel at runtime for _TIME_BITS=64 to work. New kernel headers are one of the easiest things to use when building glibc, since we have the --with-headers option. (In fact right now the headers requirement (3.2) is newer than the runtime requirement (2.6.32) on x86_64 / x86.)
Just for my understanding: do you mean requiring new headers specifically for building with _TIME_BITS=64 as I said, or would you change the minimum kernel header version for building glibc in general when we merge 64-bit time_t support?
(_TIME_BITS=64 should of course be an OS-independent API, supported for all glibc configurations. Obviously exactly what Hurd does is up to the Hurd maintainers, as probably is fixing Hurd to keep it working with _TIME_BITS=64, but _TIME_BITS=64 should clearly enable 64-bit time_t for it even if some underlying Y2038-safety is missing. NaCl already has 64-bit time_t so _TIME_BITS=64 would have no effect there.)
Fair enough. And this would also mean that we don't allow 32-bit time_t on future architectures ports that never had an upstream Linux kernel without 64-bit time_t interfaces, right?
On a related note, is there still a plan to allow building a glibc with 32-bit time_t disabled? I asked for that to be included in the past, but I don't see it in the Albert's document now, so I'm guessing that it was intentionally removed again.
Arnd
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I'd be a lot more comfortable with requiring new kernel headers to build and use glibc than with requiring a new kernel at runtime for _TIME_BITS=64 to work. New kernel headers are one of the easiest things to use when building glibc, since we have the --with-headers option. (In fact right now the headers requirement (3.2) is newer than the runtime requirement (2.6.32) on x86_64 / x86.)
Just for my understanding: do you mean requiring new headers specifically for building with _TIME_BITS=64 as I said, or would you change the minimum kernel header version for building glibc in general when we merge 64-bit time_t support?
My view would be changing the minimum for building glibc in general, rather than trying to make installed libc headers check the kernel headers version and give errors conditional on _TIME_BITS. (I think we can trust distribution maintainers to set appropriate dependencies so that in this case glibc doesn't get used with old headers if built with new headers.)
Fair enough. And this would also mean that we don't allow 32-bit time_t on future architectures ports that never had an upstream Linux kernel without 64-bit time_t interfaces, right?
I'd expect such future architectures to be in the case where _TIME_BITS=64 does nothing, much like existing 64-bit architecture ports and NaCl.
On a related note, is there still a plan to allow building a glibc with 32-bit time_t disabled? I asked for that to be included in the past, but I don't see it in the Albert's document now, so I'm guessing that it was intentionally removed again.
A given glibc port has a given set of existing ABIs, which can't be removed without changing the SONAME. That doesn't rule out making some of the old ABIs into compat symbols and disallowing building new binaries with _TIME_BITS=32, but that would be several years down the line if done at all.
(I expect we'll want to change the default for _FILE_OFFSET_BITS well before changing the _TIME_BITS default. For _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, patches were posted a while back, and eventually evidence that _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is the API most widely used for building libraries where it matters on GNU/Linux distributions; those patches need resurrecting.)
On Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:32:50 PM CEST Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I'd be a lot more comfortable with requiring new kernel headers to build and use glibc than with requiring a new kernel at runtime for _TIME_BITS=64 to work. New kernel headers are one of the easiest things to use when building glibc, since we have the --with-headers option. (In fact right now the headers requirement (3.2) is newer than the runtime requirement (2.6.32) on x86_64 / x86.)
Just for my understanding: do you mean requiring new headers specifically for building with _TIME_BITS=64 as I said, or would you change the minimum kernel header version for building glibc in general when we merge 64-bit time_t support?
My view would be changing the minimum for building glibc in general, rather than trying to make installed libc headers check the kernel headers version and give errors conditional on _TIME_BITS. (I think we can trust distribution maintainers to set appropriate dependencies so that in this case glibc doesn't get used with old headers if built with new headers.)
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
Fair enough. And this would also mean that we don't allow 32-bit time_t on future architectures ports that never had an upstream Linux kernel without 64-bit time_t interfaces, right?
I'd expect such future architectures to be in the case where _TIME_BITS=64 does nothing, much like existing 64-bit architecture ports and NaCl.
Ok.
On a related note, is there still a plan to allow building a glibc with 32-bit time_t disabled? I asked for that to be included in the past, but I don't see it in the Albert's document now, so I'm guessing that it was intentionally removed again.
A given glibc port has a given set of existing ABIs, which can't be removed without changing the SONAME. That doesn't rule out making some of the old ABIs into compat symbols and disallowing building new binaries with _TIME_BITS=32, but that would be several years down the line if done at all.
Ok, got it.
(I expect we'll want to change the default for _FILE_OFFSET_BITS well before changing the _TIME_BITS default. For _FILE_OFFSET_BITS, patches were posted a while back, and eventually evidence that _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is the API most widely used for building libraries where it matters on GNU/Linux distributions; those patches need resurrecting.)
I think the two flags are somewhat different from a user perspective:
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is generally a good idea and is required for some applications, while others are fine without it. In contrast, _TIME_BITS=64 has zero benefit for most users of 32-bit machines, but for those people that need it, it is essential that /all/ user space is built with that option.
I would also guess that it's harder distros to do a gradual migration for time_t than it is for off_t because there are more libraries that expose interfaces with time_t and those libraries do not all use symbol versioning but would get a silent ABI break from rebuilding with _TIME_BITS=64.
I expect that most distros will not turn _TIME_BITS=64 at all because it's easier to just stop supporting 32-bit binaries at some point in the next 20 years, while the ones that plan to keep supporting them will not do a gradual migration but instead force a rebuild of all binaries at the same time.
For the second use case, a changed SONAME would make sense too, but I understand this is not something you'd introduce lightly, and it's clear from your explanation that you wouldn't add this for the first version.
Is there a policy about what justifies such an ABI break? I.e. is it possible to add a build-time configuration flag later that disables 32-bit time_t support for an existing architecture while setting a different SONAME, assuming there is sufficient user interest for this feature? I see a couple of different options that change SONAME on https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList, but those are all for fundamental incompatibilities, not for voluntary ABI breaks.
Arnd
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Is there a policy about what justifies such an ABI break? I.e. is it
The clear implication from the discussions around C++11 support in libstdc++, which resulted in the complicated ABI tag infrastructure, is that changing the libstdc++ SONAME would now be too costly, which implies the same for the libc SONAME. That is, incompatible ABIs may be introduced with new ports (including fundamentally different function-calling ABIs on an existing architecture), so under appropriate SHLIB_COMPAT conditionals, but we don't expect to make such changes on existing architectures (although as developers, it would be beneficial if we could change the libc and libstdc++ SONAMEs say once a decade and get rid of accumulated ABI peculiarities at that point - the problem is the effects of such transitions on users).
possible to add a build-time configuration flag later that disables 32-bit time_t support for an existing architecture while setting a different SONAME, assuming there is sufficient user interest for this feature? I see a couple of different options that change SONAME on https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList, but those are all for fundamental incompatibilities, not for voluntary ABI breaks.
We got rid of --enable-oldest-abi as being extremely bitrotten. I don't think new options for such incompatibility are likely, at least absent clear evidence of maintainability (and maybe builtbots using them, etc.). It is of course possible to use function lists developed in the course of designing and implementing _TIME_BITS=64 to produce a list of ABIs involving 32-bit time_t, which could be used to validate that a binary doesn't use such ABIs. And a configuration option to turn the symbols into compat symbols wouldn't break the ABI - it would be more like --enable-obsolete-rpc.
On Thursday, June 23, 2016 4:56:00 PM CEST Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Is there a policy about what justifies such an ABI break? I.e. is it
The clear implication from the discussions around C++11 support in libstdc++, which resulted in the complicated ABI tag infrastructure, is that changing the libstdc++ SONAME would now be too costly, which implies the same for the libc SONAME. That is, incompatible ABIs may be introduced with new ports (including fundamentally different function-calling ABIs on an existing architecture), so under appropriate SHLIB_COMPAT conditionals, but we don't expect to make such changes on existing architectures (although as developers, it would be beneficial if we could change the libc and libstdc++ SONAMEs say once a decade and get rid of accumulated ABI peculiarities at that point - the problem is the effects of such transitions on users).
possible to add a build-time configuration flag later that disables 32-bit time_t support for an existing architecture while setting a different SONAME, assuming there is sufficient user interest for this feature? I see a couple of different options that change SONAME on https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList, but those are all for fundamental incompatibilities, not for voluntary ABI breaks.
We got rid of --enable-oldest-abi as being extremely bitrotten. I don't think new options for such incompatibility are likely, at least absent clear evidence of maintainability (and maybe builtbots using them, etc.). It is of course possible to use function lists developed in the course of designing and implementing _TIME_BITS=64 to produce a list of ABIs involving 32-bit time_t, which could be used to validate that a binary doesn't use such ABIs. And a configuration option to turn the symbols into compat symbols wouldn't break the ABI - it would be more like --enable-obsolete-rpc.
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
I think having a switch to turn the 32-bit time_t calls into compat symbols would be great. For the goal of guaranteeing that all code has been built with the _TIME_BITS=64 flag it's almost as good as removing 32-bit time_t from the build entirely, and not having to break SONAME gives a migration path for those that want it.
If we introduce that option, this would both mark the symbols as compat and also change the default for time_t to a 64-bit type without requiring an explicit _TIME_BITS=64, right?
Anyway, I don't think we need this configuration option right away, but it may be good to document in the wiki that this would be something that can be implemented if users ask for it.
For making sure we break runtime support on old binaries when we want to, running on a kernel that has the old syscalls disabled is probably sufficient, and we will need that kernel feature anyway, but it doesn't capture the case where you have a library that wraps a time_t based interface but doesn't have symbol versioning itself and a caller gets built against the library with a conflicting flag.
Arnd
Hi Arnd,
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:55:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote :
I noticed 'struct sysinfo' as another interface that holds a time, even though this is documented as 'long' and I concluded that we won't need to change it, that should probably be documented.
Added, thanks.
'struct rusage' is also interesting, as there is no overflow in 2038, but instead it could overflow on large machines (hundreds of CPUs) with very long-running tasks (months), so I'm unsure how to treat that from the kernel side. It's also one of very few kernel interfaces using 'timeval' rather than 'timespec' (we generally replaced the other ones). My current kernel patch series changes rusage by using 64-bit fields for everything, with the intention of having the same binary layout for 32-bit and 64-bit processes, and reusing the 64-bit syscall entry point for compat mode (running 32-bit tasks on a 64-bit kernel). Does that work for you?
Yes.
I think we should expand the ioctl section a bit: I can do most of it in the kernel, but need help from glibc for a few things in which we need to agree on calling conventions. Here is what I'd suggest having in the document, feel free to take that into your document or edit as you wish:
== IOCTLs and Y2038 ==
Some Linux IOCTLs may be Y2038-unsafe, or use types defined by glibc that do not match the kernel internal types. Known important cases are:
An ioctl command number is defined using the _IOR/_IOW/_IORW macros by the kernel with a structure whose size changes based on glibc's time_t. The kernel can handle these transparently by implementing handlers for both command numbers with the correct structure format.
The binary ABI changes based on the glibc time_t type, but the command number does not change. In this case, the kernel header files defining the data structure will check the "__USE_TIME_BITS64" macro [do we need a new macro for the kernel headers?] to provide a different command number for the new data structure layout. glibc will define this macro at an appropriate location [where?] to make it visible before including kernel header files.
An ioctl command passes time information in a structure that is not based on time_t but another integer type that does not get changed. The kernel header files will provide both a new structure layout and command number when "__USE_TIME_BITS64" is set.
[I can find examples for ioctl commands in each of those categories if needed.]
Please do -- I understand the first two cases, but I am not sure I understand the third one.
== Socket options ==
Like ioctl(), setsockopt()/getsockopt() has a few interfaces that are passing time data:
SO_TIMESTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMPNS/SO_TIMESTAMPING: These enable the timestamping infrastructure for a socket, which will consecutively return data to user space using "cmsg" data on the socket. The kernel does not know the layout of 'struct timespec' and 'struct timeval' when filling the cmsg data, so we need to define new binary values for the three flags, which then get used if __USE_TIME_BITS64 is set.
IOW, introduce three new optname values (say 51, 52, and 53 as on my machine, /usr/include/asm-generic/socket.h stops at 50 right now) that would behave similar to options 29, 35 and 37 but would use Y2038-safe timestamps; and define option names SO_TIMESTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPNS and SO_TIMESTAMPING to be either 29, 35 and 37 (the Y2038-unsafe options) or 51, 52 and 53 (the Y2038-safe ones) depending on __USE_TIME_BITS64. Right?
SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO: These pass a 'struct timeval' and a length. Assuming that the 'optlen' argument of the setsockopt syscall always matches the size of 'struct timeval', the kernel will be able to access the data in the same format that was passed by glibc. [alternatively, we could handle this the same way as SO_TIMESTAMP*, using new numbers for the flags].
I would prefer new numbers, that's more explicit and slightly safer, as if we rely on optlen, Murphy's Law will see to it that in practice it will have the wrong value.
[end quote]
Cordialement, Albert ARIBAUD 3ADEV
Hi Arnd,
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:55:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote :
On your note "The implementation needs further thinking about, as application code defining _TIME_BITS=64 and gets built against new kernel headers and old GLIBC headers, then GLIBC will use 32-bit time_t and kernel will expect 64-bit time_t, and there is no way to ensure detection of this case.", I think that is covered by having the kernel headers check __USE_TIME_BITS64 instead of _TIME_BITS=64, as I described above.
What about application source code which includes kernel headers before including any GLIBC header? The kernel header will see __TIME_BITS=64 but it won't see _USE_TIME_BITS64, and will make the wrong decision. Don't we consider this a possible scenario?
Cordialement, Albert ARIBAUD 3ADEV
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:58:38 AM CEST Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
== IOCTLs and Y2038 ==
Some Linux IOCTLs may be Y2038-unsafe, or use types defined by glibc that do not match the kernel internal types. Known important cases are:
An ioctl command number is defined using the _IOR/_IOW/_IORW macros by the kernel with a structure whose size changes based on glibc's time_t. The kernel can handle these transparently by implementing handlers for both command numbers with the correct structure format.
The binary ABI changes based on the glibc time_t type, but the command number does not change. In this case, the kernel header files defining the data structure will check the "__USE_TIME_BITS64" macro [do we need a new macro for the kernel headers?] to provide a different command number for the new data structure layout. glibc will define this macro at an appropriate location [where?] to make it visible before including kernel header files.
An ioctl command passes time information in a structure that is not based on time_t but another integer type that does not get changed. The kernel header files will provide both a new structure layout and command number when "__USE_TIME_BITS64" is set.
[I can find examples for ioctl commands in each of those categories if needed.]
Please do -- I understand the first two cases, but I am not sure I understand the third one.
a) include/linux/ppdev.h:
/* Set and get port timeout (struct timeval's) */ #define PPGETTIME _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x95, struct timeval) #define PPSETTIME _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x96, struct timeval)
b) include/linux/lp.h: (this passes a timeval as well) #define LPSETTIMEOUT 0x060f /* set parport timeout */
c) Actually I could not find a real case any more, it's possible they are all gone. Two similar cases though:
linux/raid/md_u.h: (this one was "fixed" by ensuring the user space side can deal with 32-bit time stamps)
typedef struct mdu_array_info_s { ... unsigned int utime; /* 0 Superblock update time */ ... } mdu_array_info_t; #define GET_ARRAY_INFO _IOR (MD_MAJOR, 0x11, mdu_array_info_t)
drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_ioctl.h: (this file was removed since, as the hardware is now obsolete)
struct IOCTL_GET_DSP_STAT { unsigned char DspVer[DSPVERSZ]; /* DSP version number */ unsigned char HwSerNum[HWSERNUMSZ]; /* Hardware Serial Number */ unsigned char Sku[SKUSZ]; /* SKU */ unsigned char eui64[EUISZ]; /* EUI64 */ unsigned short ConStat; /* Connection Status */
unsigned long nTxPkts; /* Number of packets transmitted * from host to dsp */ unsigned long nRxPkts; /* Number of packets received from * dsp to host */ unsigned long nTxBytes; /* Number of bytes transmitted * from host to dsp */ unsigned long nRxBytes; /* Number of bytes received from * dsp to host */ unsigned long ConTm; /* Current session connection time * in seconds */ .... } __packed;
#define IOCTL_FT1000_GET_DSP_STAT _IOR(FT1000_MAGIC_CODE, \ IOCTL_GET_DSP_STAT_CMD, \ struct IOCTL_GET_DSP_STAT)
== Socket options ==
Like ioctl(), setsockopt()/getsockopt() has a few interfaces that are passing time data:
SO_TIMESTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMPNS/SO_TIMESTAMPING: These enable the timestamping infrastructure for a socket, which will consecutively return data to user space using "cmsg" data on the socket. The kernel does not know the layout of 'struct timespec' and 'struct timeval' when filling the cmsg data, so we need to define new binary values for the three flags, which then get used if __USE_TIME_BITS64 is set.
IOW, introduce three new optname values (say 51, 52, and 53 as on my machine, /usr/include/asm-generic/socket.h stops at 50 right now) that would behave similar to options 29, 35 and 37 but would use Y2038-safe timestamps; and define option names SO_TIMESTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPNS and SO_TIMESTAMPING to be either 29, 35 and 37 (the Y2038-unsafe options) or 51, 52 and 53 (the Y2038-safe ones) depending on __USE_TIME_BITS64. Right?
Correct.
SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO: These pass a 'struct timeval' and a length. Assuming that the 'optlen' argument of the setsockopt syscall always matches the size of 'struct timeval', the kernel will be able to access the data in the same format that was passed by glibc. [alternatively, we could handle this the same way as SO_TIMESTAMP*, using new numbers for the flags].
I would prefer new numbers, that's more explicit and slightly safer, as if we rely on optlen, Murphy's Law will see to it that in practice it will have the wrong value.
Fair enough.
Arnd
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:16:11 PM CEST Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:55:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote :
On your note "The implementation needs further thinking about, as application code defining _TIME_BITS=64 and gets built against new kernel headers and old GLIBC headers, then GLIBC will use 32-bit time_t and kernel will expect 64-bit time_t, and there is no way to ensure detection of this case.", I think that is covered by having the kernel headers check __USE_TIME_BITS64 instead of _TIME_BITS=64, as I described above.
What about application source code which includes kernel headers before including any GLIBC header? The kernel header will see __TIME_BITS=64 but it won't see _USE_TIME_BITS64, and will make the wrong decision. Don't we consider this a possible scenario?
Good point, I think you are right that this is a problem. In particular, the normal rule for kernel headers is that they should explictly not include any libc headers or rely on them to be included first. We have some exceptions from those rules for historic reasons.
Do you have any other ideas for how to solve it? We probably only need a handful of those, so we could look at them case-by-case to see what kind of exception we can make.
Arnd
I think we should expand the ioctl section a bit: I can do most of it in the kernel, but need help from glibc for a few things in which we need to agree on calling conventions. Here is what I'd suggest having in the document, feel free to take that into your document or edit as you wish:
== IOCTLs and Y2038 ==
Some Linux IOCTLs may be Y2038-unsafe, or use types defined by glibc that do not match the kernel internal types. Known important cases are:
An ioctl command number is defined using the _IOR/_IOW/_IORW macros by the kernel with a structure whose size changes based on glibc's time_t. The kernel can handle these transparently by implementing handlers for both command numbers with the correct structure format.
The binary ABI changes based on the glibc time_t type, but the command number does not change. In this case, the kernel header files defining the data structure will check the "__USE_TIME_BITS64" macro [do we need a new macro for the kernel headers?] to provide a different command number for the new data structure layout. glibc will define this macro at an appropriate location [where?] to make it visible before including kernel header files.
An ioctl command passes time information in a structure that is not based on time_t but another integer type that does not get changed. The kernel header files will provide both a new structure layout and command number when "__USE_TIME_BITS64" is set.
[I can find examples for ioctl commands in each of those categories if needed.]
Please do -- I understand the first two cases, but I am not sure I understand the third one.
== Socket options ==
Like ioctl(), setsockopt()/getsockopt() has a few interfaces that are passing time data:
SO_TIMESTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMPNS/SO_TIMESTAMPING: These enable the timestamping infrastructure for a socket, which will consecutively return data to user space using "cmsg" data on the socket. The kernel does not know the layout of 'struct timespec' and 'struct timeval' when filling the cmsg data, so we need to define new binary values for the three flags, which then get used if __USE_TIME_BITS64 is set.
IOW, introduce three new optname values (say 51, 52, and 53 as on my machine, /usr/include/asm-generic/socket.h stops at 50 right now) that would behave similar to options 29, 35 and 37 but would use Y2038-safe timestamps; and define option names SO_TIMESTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPNS and SO_TIMESTAMPING to be either 29, 35 and 37 (the Y2038-unsafe options) or 51, 52 and 53 (the Y2038-safe ones) depending on __USE_TIME_BITS64. Right?
Another way of handling this would be to use the flags in sendmsg/recvmsg. Since cmsg is sent using these calls, at the time of call, sendmsg/recvmsg can indicate whether 64 bit time_t or 32 bit time_t is used. This will eliminate the need for new options and kernel need not depend on __USE_TIME_BITS64.
SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO: These pass a 'struct timeval' and a length. Assuming that the 'optlen' argument of the setsockopt syscall always matches the size of 'struct timeval', the kernel will be able to access the data in the same format that was passed by glibc. [alternatively, we could handle this the same way as SO_TIMESTAMP*, using new numbers for the flags].
I would prefer new numbers, that's more explicit and slightly safer, as if we rely on optlen, Murphy's Law will see to it that in practice it will have the wrong value.
But, if we are not using optlen here, then probably just using new numbers for timestamps also makes sense.
-Deepa
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Deepa Dinamani deepa.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should expand the ioctl section a bit: I can do most of it in the kernel, but need help from glibc for a few things in which we need to agree on calling conventions. Here is what I'd suggest having in the document, feel free to take that into your document or edit as you wish:
== IOCTLs and Y2038 ==
Some Linux IOCTLs may be Y2038-unsafe, or use types defined by glibc that do not match the kernel internal types. Known important cases are:
An ioctl command number is defined using the _IOR/_IOW/_IORW macros by the kernel with a structure whose size changes based on glibc's time_t. The kernel can handle these transparently by implementing handlers for both command numbers with the correct structure format.
The binary ABI changes based on the glibc time_t type, but the command number does not change. In this case, the kernel header files defining the data structure will check the "__USE_TIME_BITS64" macro [do we need a new macro for the kernel headers?] to provide a different command number for the new data structure layout. glibc will define this macro at an appropriate location [where?] to make it visible before including kernel header files.
An ioctl command passes time information in a structure that is not based on time_t but another integer type that does not get changed. The kernel header files will provide both a new structure layout and command number when "__USE_TIME_BITS64" is set.
[I can find examples for ioctl commands in each of those categories if needed.]
Please do -- I understand the first two cases, but I am not sure I understand the third one.
== Socket options ==
Like ioctl(), setsockopt()/getsockopt() has a few interfaces that are passing time data:
SO_TIMESTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMPNS/SO_TIMESTAMPING: These enable the timestamping infrastructure for a socket, which will consecutively return data to user space using "cmsg" data on the socket. The kernel does not know the layout of 'struct timespec' and 'struct timeval' when filling the cmsg data, so we need to define new binary values for the three flags, which then get used if __USE_TIME_BITS64 is set.
IOW, introduce three new optname values (say 51, 52, and 53 as on my machine, /usr/include/asm-generic/socket.h stops at 50 right now) that would behave similar to options 29, 35 and 37 but would use Y2038-safe timestamps; and define option names SO_TIMESTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPNS and SO_TIMESTAMPING to be either 29, 35 and 37 (the Y2038-unsafe options) or 51, 52 and 53 (the Y2038-safe ones) depending on __USE_TIME_BITS64. Right?
Another way of handling this would be to use the flags in sendmsg/recvmsg. Since cmsg is sent using these calls, at the time of call, sendmsg/recvmsg can indicate whether 64 bit time_t or 32 bit time_t is used. This will eliminate the need for new options and kernel need not depend on __USE_TIME_BITS64.
SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO: These pass a 'struct timeval' and a length. Assuming that the 'optlen' argument of the setsockopt syscall always matches the size of 'struct timeval', the kernel will be able to access the data in the same format that was passed by glibc. [alternatively, we could handle this the same way as SO_TIMESTAMP*, using new numbers for the flags].
I would prefer new numbers, that's more explicit and slightly safer, as if we rely on optlen, Murphy's Law will see to it that in practice it will have the wrong value.
But, if we are not using optlen here, then probably just using new numbers for timestamps also makes sense.
Forgot to note one more thing here. Since we are already using struct sizes for ioctls, shouldn't this be similar. So optlen should also be okay? Just as in the example Arnd pointed out above:
/* Set and get port timeout (struct timeval's) */ #define PPGETTIME _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x95, struct timeval) #define PPSETTIME _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x96, struct timeval)
-Deepa
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:38:25 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Deepa Dinamani deepa.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
== Socket options ==
Like ioctl(), setsockopt()/getsockopt() has a few interfaces that are passing time data:
SO_TIMESTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMPNS/SO_TIMESTAMPING: These enable the timestamping infrastructure for a socket, which will consecutively return data to user space using "cmsg" data on the socket. The kernel does not know the layout of 'struct timespec' and 'struct timeval' when filling the cmsg data, so we need to define new binary values for the three flags, which then get used if __USE_TIME_BITS64 is set.
IOW, introduce three new optname values (say 51, 52, and 53 as on my machine, /usr/include/asm-generic/socket.h stops at 50 right now) that would behave similar to options 29, 35 and 37 but would use Y2038-safe timestamps; and define option names SO_TIMESTAMP, SO_TIMESTAMPNS and SO_TIMESTAMPING to be either 29, 35 and 37 (the Y2038-unsafe options) or 51, 52 and 53 (the Y2038-safe ones) depending on __USE_TIME_BITS64. Right?
Another way of handling this would be to use the flags in sendmsg/recvmsg. Since cmsg is sent using these calls, at the time of call, sendmsg/recvmsg can indicate whether 64 bit time_t or 32 bit time_t is used. This will eliminate the need for new options and kernel need not depend on __USE_TIME_BITS64.
Good point, I had forgotten how we discussed that a while ago.
SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO: These pass a 'struct timeval' and a length. Assuming that the 'optlen' argument of the setsockopt syscall always matches the size of 'struct timeval', the kernel will be able to access the data in the same format that was passed by glibc. [alternatively, we could handle this the same way as SO_TIMESTAMP*, using new numbers for the flags].
I would prefer new numbers, that's more explicit and slightly safer, as if we rely on optlen, Murphy's Law will see to it that in practice it will have the wrong value.
But, if we are not using optlen here, then probably just using new numbers for timestamps also makes sense.
Forgot to note one more thing here. Since we are already using struct sizes for ioctls, shouldn't this be similar. So optlen should also be okay? Just as in the example Arnd pointed out above:
/* Set and get port timeout (struct timeval's) */ #define PPGETTIME _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x95, struct timeval) #define PPSETTIME _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x96, struct timeval)
I've added the netdev list and David Miller to Cc here, it seems either way would work, and I don't have a strong preference.
a) add a flag to recvmsg() that glibc always passes when called using __USE_TIME_BITS64 to handle reading the timestamps, and rely on the optlen value for SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO to decide how to interpret the data
b) handle all five sockopts using conditional option numbers and don't rely on the recvmsg() flag or optlen.
Using either a) or b) is probably better than a combination of them, so I've not listed that as another alternative.
To work around the header inclusion order problem we discussed earlier for approach b), I suppose we can do this using something like
#define SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME32 21 #define SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME64 53
#define SO_RCVTIMEO (__USE_TIME_BITS==64 ? SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME64 : SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME32)
where __USE_TIME_BITS is a macro defined by the libc. We cannot easily check for whether a macro is defined in a conditional expression, but I think the above should work, as long as we don't need use the value from assembler code.
Arnd
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:39:13 +0200, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote :
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:38:25 PM CEST Deepa Dinamani wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Deepa Dinamani deepa.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
[...] [...]
Another way of handling this would be to use the flags in sendmsg/recvmsg. Since cmsg is sent using these calls, at the time of call, sendmsg/recvmsg can indicate whether 64 bit time_t or 32 bit time_t is used. This will eliminate the need for new options and kernel need not depend on __USE_TIME_BITS64.
Good point, I had forgotten how we discussed that a while ago.
[...] [...]
But, if we are not using optlen here, then probably just using new numbers for timestamps also makes sense.
Forgot to note one more thing here. Since we are already using struct sizes for ioctls, shouldn't this be similar. So optlen should also be okay? Just as in the example Arnd pointed out above:
/* Set and get port timeout (struct timeval's) */ #define PPGETTIME _IOR(PP_IOCTL, 0x95, struct timeval) #define PPSETTIME _IOW(PP_IOCTL, 0x96, struct timeval)
I've added the netdev list and David Miller to Cc here, it seems either way would work, and I don't have a strong preference.
a) add a flag to recvmsg() that glibc always passes when called using __USE_TIME_BITS64 to handle reading the timestamps, and rely on the optlen value for SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SNTTIMEO to decide how to interpret the data
b) handle all five sockopts using conditional option numbers and don't rely on the recvmsg() flag or optlen.
Using either a) or b) is probably better than a combination of them, so I've not listed that as another alternative.
To work around the header inclusion order problem we discussed earlier for approach b), I suppose we can do this using something like
#define SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME32 21 #define SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME64 53
#define SO_RCVTIMEO (__USE_TIME_BITS==64 ? SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME64 : SO_RCVTIMEO_TIME32)
where __USE_TIME_BITS is a macro defined by the libc. We cannot easily check for whether a macro is defined in a conditional expression, but I think the above should work, as long as we don't need use the value from assembler code.
Arnd
Seems like there was no reply on the netdev or libc-alpha lists or from David. I personally am not fond of relying on length to determine which variant of an argument we are dealing with, therefore I prefer option b over option a and will update the design doc accordingly.
Cordialement, Albert ARIBAUD 3ADEV
Hi Arnd,
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:02:13 +0200, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote :
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:16:11 PM CEST Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:55:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote :
On your note "The implementation needs further thinking about, as application code defining _TIME_BITS=64 and gets built against new kernel headers and old GLIBC headers, then GLIBC will use 32-bit time_t and kernel will expect 64-bit time_t, and there is no way to ensure detection of this case.", I think that is covered by having the kernel headers check __USE_TIME_BITS64 instead of _TIME_BITS=64, as I described above.
What about application source code which includes kernel headers before including any GLIBC header? The kernel header will see __TIME_BITS=64 but it won't see _USE_TIME_BITS64, and will make the wrong decision. Don't we consider this a possible scenario?
Good point, I think you are right that this is a problem. In particular, the normal rule for kernel headers is that they should explictly not include any libc headers or rely on them to be included first. We have some exceptions from those rules for historic reasons.
Do you have any other ideas for how to solve it? We probably only need a handful of those, so we could look at them case-by-case to see what kind of exception we can make.
I don't think there is a perfect, or even good enough, compile-time solution where header could be included in any order while keeping kernel headers from referencing GLIBC macros.
But we can at least detect and explicitly flag bad kernel/glibc/app time size combinations at runtime:
- make Y2038-safe kernel provide a new syscall which tells at run time what features the kernel supports, e.g. does it support 64-bit time, 32-bit time, both? [the need could be more generic than just time support, so I tought such a syscall already existed, but I have not found any in the current syscalls list -- I might have missed it though]
- make Y2038-safe GLIBC use the syscall existence and returned value(s) to determine at runtime whether the running kernel, running GLIBC and running application all agree on 32-bit or 64-bit time.
- make Y2038-safe GLIBC unconditionally define a symbol to announce itself as such -- regardless from whether or not it is built for 64-bit time.
A Y2038-safe GLIBC would thus detect when it runs on a non-Y2038-safe kernel (syscall absent or returning a value which amounts to 'no 64-bit time support built in kernel') and could bail out with an explicit message.
A Y2038-safe GLIBC on a kernel which supports the syscall (or syscall extension) could compare the macros defined by the application code at compile time with the actually supported kernel features and bail out explicitly on mismatches.
Plus, *if it decides to, an application aspiring to be Y2038-safe would be able to verify at build timethat the GLIBC it is compiling against is indeed Y2038-safe, thus allowing detection of the scenario above with new kernel headers and old GLIBC header. Of course, if the application code does not check the macro, this will be missed -- one can bring the horse to the river, etc. That will be a matter of good practice.
Does this make any sense?
Cordialement, Albert ARIBAUD 3ADEV
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
- make Y2038-safe kernel provide a new syscall which tells at run time what features the kernel supports, e.g. does it support 64-bit time, 32-bit time, both? [the need could be more generic than just time support, so I tought such a syscall already existed, but I have not found any in the current syscalls list -- I might have missed it though]
There will be lots of syscalls added with the 64-bit time support. If they are all added in the same kernel version, glibc can have a single internal variable for whether 64-bit time support is available in the kernel (set the first time it tries using such a syscall, used to tell whether to try such syscalls in future).
A Y2038-safe GLIBC would thus detect when it runs on a non-Y2038-safe kernel (syscall absent or returning a value which amounts to 'no 64-bit time support built in kernel') and could bail out with an explicit message.
But it shouldn't bail out; it should just use the existing syscalls and translate as needed when the user called the 64-bit time interfaces.
-
Albert ARIBAUD -
Arnd Bergmann -
Deepa Dinamani -
Joseph Myers