On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:37 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 08:22:07PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > 2) the filesystem has been altered (fuzzing? deliberate doctoring?). > > > > None of these seem like legitimate use cases so I'm arguing that we > > shouldn't worry about them. > > Not worry seems like the wrong answer here. Either we decide they > are legitimate enough and we preserve them, or we decide they are > bogus and refuse reading the inode. But we'll need to consciously > deal with the case. > Is there a problem with consciously dealing with it by clamping the time at KTIME_MAX? If I had a fs with corrupt timestamps, the last thing I'd want is the filesystem refusing to let me at my data because of them. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
