Stime/Settimeofday are still broken

[B. D. Elliott]

The problems described below still exist in -2.6.0-test1.

>Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:57:12 -0700
>From: "B. D. Elliott" <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Sparc64-2.5.72: A Serious Time Problem
>Mail-Followup-To: [e-mail]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
>Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
>Status: RO
>Content-Length: 1651
>Lines: 47
>
>There is a serious bug in setting time on 64-bit sparcs (and probably other
>64-bit systems).  The symptom is that ntpdate or date set the time back to
>1969 or 1970.  The underlying problems are that stime is broken, and any
>settimeofday call fails with a bad fractional value.  Ntpdate falls back to
>stime when settimeofday fails.
>
>The settimeofday problem is that the timeval and timespec structures are not
>the same size.  In particular, the fractional part is an int in timeval, and
>a long in timespec.  The stime problem is that the argument is not an int,
>but a time_t, which is long on at least some 64-bit systems.
>
>The following patch appears to fix this on my sparc64.
>
>===================================================================
>--- ./kernel/time.c.orig	2003-06-16 22:36:04.000000000 -0700
>+++ ./kernel/time.c	2003-06-18 00:00:43.000000000 -0700
>@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
>  * architectures that need it).
>  */
>  
>-asmlinkage long sys_stime(int * tptr)
>+asmlinkage long sys_stime(time_t * tptr)
> {
> 	struct timespec tv;
> 
>@@ -162,13 +162,15 @@
> 
> asmlinkage long sys_settimeofday(struct timeval __user *tv, struct timezone __user *tz)
> {
>+	struct timeval user_tv;
> 	struct timespec	new_tv;
> 	struct timezone new_tz;
> 
> 	if (tv) {
>-		if (copy_from_user(&new_tv, tv, sizeof(*tv)))
>+		if (copy_from_user(&user_tv, tv, sizeof(*tv)))
> 			return -EFAULT;
>-		new_tv.tv_nsec *= NSEC_PER_USEC;
>+		new_tv.tv_sec = user_tv.tv_sec;
>+		new_tv.tv_nsec = user_tv.tv_usec * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> 	}
> 	if (tz) {
> 		if (copy_from_user(&new_tz, tz, sizeof(*tz)))
>===================================================================

-- 
B. D. Elliott   [e-mail]