2017-11-27 21:51 GMT+01:00 Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>:
[...]
>> 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 Björn 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.
>> 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.
> Arnd
From 1585253966410803335@xxx Mon Nov 27 20:53:12 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585237026660624862
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread