Re: 64-bit time_t and __WORDSIZE_TIME64_COMPAT32

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>]

On 08/02/23 07:38, Thorsten Kukuk via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 08 2023, Thorsten Kukuk via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>
>>> If they declare utmp and the file locations at their own, you need to
>>> modify them anyways. And if you do that, you can change them to use
>>> the official glibc API and not their own written one.
>>
>> See utmpname.
> 
> Correct, see above.
> But the good thing is: none of the standart tools accessing utmp
> use this function.
> 
> The alternative is, that all this code get's their own code to
> handle utmp, wtmp and lastlog themself. Would be much more efford to
> coordinate this.
> 
>   Thorsten
> 


I proposed a fix for the utmp/utmpx/lastlog interface on the initial 64 bit
time_t support [1] (patch 16 to 22) and Florian suggested to just deprecate
the interface altogether (the DoS BZ#24492 essentially requires rewrite to
use an external daemon, which is not what we want).

My proposal was essentially to create new path and use 64-bit time_t field,
along with some internal conversions if the old path is used.  I ended drop
this part from 64 bit interface because it is a legacy interface and it 
would most likely generate some breakage.

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-March/123341.html