Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

> Deepa, > > You added this warning: > pr_warn("Mounted %s file system at %s supports timestamps until ... > along with timestamp clamping > > I suggest that you implement kernel support check based on grepping > for this warning after loop mounting an ext2 test image. > A bit over the top and

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

[+cc cip-dev] On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 12:29 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [...] > - Users of CIP SLTS kernels with extreme service life that may involve > not upgrading until after y2038 (this is obviously not recommended if > you connect to a public network, but I'm sure some people do this

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:28 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > I don't think there is a clear policy about being friendly to testing > > less that master kernels in xfstest (Eryu?), but IMO we should try to > > accommodate > > this use

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:29:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:40 AM Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:28:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > [1] > > >

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:40 AM Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:28:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/futimens.html > > Ugh, that's a mess. Why not just use

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:28:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > I don't think there is a clear policy about being friendly to testing > > less that master kernels in xfstest (Eryu?), but IMO we should try to > > accommodate > > this

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > I don't think there is a clear policy about being friendly to testing > less that master kernels in xfstest (Eryu?), but IMO we should try to > accommodate > this use case, because it is in the best interest of everyone that stable >

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > I looked at this more closely. Here is the patch that added the sysctl > to the kernel previously: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/2/300. > > This was meant to be configurable earlier. That is why this made > sense. But, now it is not. We

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

I looked at this more closely. Here is the patch that added the sysctl to the kernel previously: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/2/300. This was meant to be configurable earlier. That is why this made sense. But, now it is not. We unconditionally clamp to the fs limits. I looked around to see if we

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

> > { > > local device=${1:-$TEST_DEV} > > - local sysfsdir=/proc/sys/fs/fs-timestamp-check-on > > - > > - if [ ! -e $sysfsdir ]; then > > - _notrun "no kernel support for y2038 sysfs switch" > > - fi > > > > Deepa, > > This change, which is already merged

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:21 AM Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported > timestamps on the filesystems. > > Adjust the test accordingly. > > An updated series to be posted after the merge window is hosted at >

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 11:35 AM Eryu Guan wrote: > We already print error message on test failure, which will break the > golden image, so there's no need to return 0 or 1. All similar checks > and returns are not needed in other functions. I removed the status checks and associated returns.

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 09:12:31PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported > timestamps on the filesystems. > > Adjust the test accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up about the merge of the fixes

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:47 AM Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 09:12:31PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported > > timestamps on the filesystems. > > It'd be better to provide more details in the commit log, e.g. what >

Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 09:12:31PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported > timestamps on the filesystems. It'd be better to provide more details in the commit log, e.g. what kind of mount behavior and what's the changes being made to the

[Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported timestamps on the filesystems. Adjust the test accordingly. An updated series to be posted after the merge window is hosted at Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani --- common/rc