On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:45 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:06 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:48 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:30 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Overlayfs timestamp overflow limits should be inherrited from upper > > > > filesystem. > > > > > > > > The current behavior, when overlayfs is over an underlying filesystem > > > > that does not support post 2038 timestamps (e.g. xfs), is that overlayfs > > > > overflows post 2038 timestamps instead of clamping them. > > > > > > How? Isn't the clamping supposed to happen in the underlying filesystem anyway? > > > > > > > Not sure if it is supposed to be it doesn't. > > It happens in do_utimes() -> utimes_common() > > Clamping also happens as part of current_time(). If this is called on > an inode belonging to the upper fs, then the timestamps are clamped to > those limits. > OK, but from utimes syscall they do not get clamped inside filesystem only in syscall itself. Right? Thanks, Amir.
