On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:06 PM 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() Ah. How about moving the timestamp_truncate() inside notify_change()? > clamping seems to happen when user sets the times, > so setting the overlay limits to those of upper fs seems > correct anyway. It does seem correct, I just think moving the truncation into the right layer would make more sense. Thanks, Miklos
