# Re: \[PATCH 11/23\] y2038: rusage: use \_\_kernel\_old\_timeval

- From: Cyrill Gorcunov \<hidden\>
- Date: 2019-11-12 21:09:23 
- List: linux-alpha
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-alpha/2019/11/5774492
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-alpha/2019/11/166384/t.md

```text
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:12:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> There are two 'struct timeval' fields in 'struct rusage'.
> 
> Unfortunately the definition of timeval is now ambiguous when used in
> user space with a libc that has a 64-bit time_t, and this also changes
> the 'rusage' definition in user space in a way that is incompatible with
> the system call interface.
> 
> While there is no good solution to avoid all ambiguity here, change
> the definition in the kernel headers to be compatible with the kernel
> ABI, using __kernel_old_timeval as an unambiguous base type.
> 
> In previous discussions, there was also a plan to add a replacement
> for rusage based on 64-bit timestamps and nanosecond resolution,
> i.e. 'struct __kernel_timespec'. I have patches for that as well,
> if anyone thinks we should do that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> Question: should we also rename 'struct rusage' into 'struct __kernel_rusage'
> here, to make them completely unambiguous?

The patch looks ok to me. I must confess I looked into rusage long ago
so __kernel_timespec type used in uapi made me nervious at first,
but then i found that we've this type defined in time_types.h uapi
so userspace should be safe. I also like the idea of __kernel_rusage
but definitely on top of the series.

Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <redacted>
```