Re: [PATCH] ovl: fix timestamp limits

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?

Yes, that's right.

-Deepa



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Devel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux