Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:53:14 -0300 From: Matias Fonzo <selk@...gora.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] remaining steps for time64 switchover Hello Rich, El 2019-10-27 18:14, Rich Felker escribió: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 05:12:59PM -0300, Matias Fonzo wrote: >> Hello Laurent, >> >> Can utmps work without s6?. I mean, independently of the init >> system or distribution... > > Laurent could answer in better detail, but as a quick answer, there's > no requirement from having s6 installed that you use it as your init > system. > I thought so, but there could be a configuration-side requirement or daemon (setup) to work properly, I don't know. We are using perp for Dragora. > > >> El 2019-10-27 05:32, Laurent Bercot escribió: >> >>Or here. So, the story on utmpx: we can either >> >> >> >>1. match the current size on 32-bit archs, but move the timeval to >> >> unused space at the end where a time64 version fits, or >> >> >> >>2. match the current size and layout of the 64-bit struct, making it >> >> possible to share records between 32- and 64-bit processes on the >> >> same machine. >> >> >> >>Keep in mind that this struct is not used anywhere in libc presently, >> >>but normally it's used as a format for on-disk records. >> >> >> >>I'm kinda leaning towards option 2, but being that I don't use (and >> >>hate) utmp, I'd rather hear opinions from people who do use it. Either >> >>way time fields in existing data will break, so it's a question of >> >>whether that one-time breakage is already sufficient to go a bit >> >>further and get 32/64 compat afterwards. >> > >> >I don't use the libc's utmpx, but I maintain utmps, which is a secure >> >implementation of utmp, including the definition of struct utmpx. >> >I haven't been following the time64 thing closely. The current struct >> >utmpx definition includes a struct timeval. Will it need to change, >> >or will musl's struct timeval change be enough and naturally propagate >> >so the struct utmpx will become time64-compatible? >> > >> >On-disk data is not a problem. On the distro that I know uses utmps >> >(Adélie), the utmp/wtmp records, by design, do not survive a reboot, >> >so a reboot will fix everything - and will be mandatory anyway on >> >arches where the musl ABI changes. >> > >> >I'm not aware of any distribution that uses musl, doesn't use utmps, >> >and still keeps on-disk utmpx records. >> > >> >-- >> >Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.