Re: [RESEND PATCH] timerfd: Allow TFD_TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET with relative timeouts

[Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 19 October 2015 11:53:25 John Stultz wrote:
> > 
> > But yea. At the same time I get you want to avoid user-pain like in
> > the case of the badly initialized RTC, but in that case would
> > returning 0 for RTC reads greater then y2038 on 32 bit systems be a
> > more sane fix?
> 
> I like that idea. In theory we could go further and check that the RTC
> is somewhere between 2015 and 2037 (or higher on 64-bit systems) but
> return 0 (1970) for anything that is outside of that range. That might
> have side-effects for users that have a legitimate reason to backdate
> their clocks though.

This is how the RTC framework used to handle it before the referenced
patch in my original mail, so a reversal (conditional on 32bit)
would solve that part of the problem.

It also looks like Miroslav's patch will handle the other cases of a
accidental user initiated set of a bad date or a maliciously set NTP.
Though, from my point of view, a wrap-around to 1970 would be just as valid
as a jump one week in the past.

What's the current status of that patch?

> 	Arnd

/^JN - Jesper Nilsson
-- 
               Jesper Nilsson -- jesper.nilsson@axis.com