From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C57373858C83 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 22:39:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C57373858C83 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1677710364; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nUC4o5JYA+COze3TIUpRkiC1awLOGOJZGvMTS3ArcHM=; b=YRrv6ltWaUv9mSLxsjSjZ5GXkFssglvPe8Oi+zmf9ORbUbHGJOdiewF5zAw9XJxdA2ky2Z GkVfoV5x1vFqSBu3tUBwKPpyii6UU5NqSD/0sJfCjX1VlUbIMneVOsn05mTdkkzbk/UKp7 MWGtoluLDf3cG1U8hLcH+7+b0Iw4KwA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-567-SafxIWZCOUWoflpyKh2KJw-1; Wed, 01 Mar 2023 17:39:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: SafxIWZCOUWoflpyKh2KJw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8DBE855710; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 22:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.108]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5BFD400D79D; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 22:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 16:38:59 -0600 From: Eric Blake To: Sam James Cc: Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha , autoconf@gnu.org, c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev, Zack Weinberg , David Seifert , Gentoo Toolchain , Arsen =?utf-8?Q?Arsenovi=C4=87?= , Paul Eggert , berrange@redhat.com, rjones@redhat.com Subject: Re: On time64 and Large File Support Message-ID: <20230301223859.chl5o3bedqckf3tx@redhat.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20220429 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.2 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: [replying to the original post, because I'm not sure where else in the more recent activity on this thread would be more appropriate] On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 08:38:18AM +0000, Sam James wrote: > Hi all, > > In Gentoo, we've been planning out what we should do for time64 on glibc [0] > and concluded that we need some support in glibc for a newer option. I'll outline > why below. > ... > > Indeed, the gnulib version of change #2 is exactly how we ended up with > wget/gnutls breaking [1]. I feel this shows that the only approach > "supported" by glibc right now is untenable. > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/828001 Now Fedora is also being hit by the gnutls ABI change due to time_t in public interfaces being silently changed. From an IRC conversation I had with Dan Berrange and Rich Jones (I think Rich mean i686 below): rjones (IRC): oh wow, the certificates created on i696 are not quite right ..... Validity: Not Before: Sat Sep 05 00:23:57 UTC 2703 Not After: Sun Sep 06 00:23:57 UTC 2703 just a few years too early i think this is looking like a gnutls regression, downgrading gnutls makes it work ... rjones (IRC): hmm, i'm beginning to think gnutls has been miscompiled by gcc gnutls_x509_crt_get_activation_time inside the gnutls verification api returns garbage but the very same call done from a demo program returns the right answer ... OMG, gnulib-- has silently changed gnutls to use 64-bit time_t ...which is an ABI incompatibility because gnutls has public APIs which have time_t parameters so apps talking to gnutls will expect 32-bit time_t, but gnutls is processing 64-bit time_t this is utterly insane -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org