From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB04DC43331 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:56:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1C921D7F for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:56:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lbfaVhlj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727493AbfKLQ4x (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:56:53 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com ([209.85.166.68]:37719 "EHLO mail-io1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726659AbfKLQ4w (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:56:52 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id 1so19486242iou.4; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:56:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HqwJXeNY9wk6z2+t/J/8K5zGxXhn1Q+H3q7mr3NuIM0=; b=lbfaVhljEpOI7EYfxB3HeVQRxYqUIq+gC/bIApH/dTVGxMV983jl+uPbDjF41nRql3 FOel9WxXNe3P6/35QiHWkGKYhHQWYXi+/h3MiQC5xVLnPlOGiHXbTnWjEtiUKtiIY8av DHmv/ejyRRzheQlY4G+jGBwMUv8+n41gbh6lclYUZq8lqBrp4beZvsProiQMALL5kZNN 15Bt0CJBZL8xKPgcRLCIFmLkdrOItPr0EHZdddjSjtrcdexhqLgT0qk/IC7Mp/dCkMUk l/8sCtftm4Wi8w1VEgNhVDnxWNkkQJRayMcZlVBPwMx9/MxM0Rlq5m8o2etPy8ALg8i4 3F4w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HqwJXeNY9wk6z2+t/J/8K5zGxXhn1Q+H3q7mr3NuIM0=; b=nFBs42A+FGnRvMRD1CGBuurG8Bx6nbFsvrCs0kJ8Y/9GIZovCyHCQtd1zWS0i1x+Gs f0OCUP92/+fk5ZJT4pmSRROEipcWLTLR8rzo1mjDD4q9dXVZ3idfMnEcc5WViEGUMd97 fIrRj26pXILn9MWhogOaHHgax/WKLPW0zfbWANT/hDq7A+ghVkPqAEccGt81Ws+Rgm9y U/m+11FDbMKRMuw2U5nYTKat3x8QYWmy3cMVzDyISf1uQzeNFK0AqNOcsumnsvOcRkLp k2j4kzk4oKC7L9dXctgsRYVLp1ODywAESSWdY/8HaH6GOchDTJw7T5BYoY6Wv5eqracC YZKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWvIztj0zeR9rOxAd17RE4hjVueR/bfcCQNUxX9A2lU7F5ZgmFy 8vlD0QxGw/Sd0VckyQeqXQ0MZs5pERiGO2E7E3g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyzAJg7T4N6pMBCrhN9eKsAC4ZA5oYgjBdRuxuM8bVioMoZjAH6MhGw4WgK8qmX4B90VhovBACFUrMr60ejB3k= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e403:: with SMTP id u3mr31800360iog.130.1573577811692; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:56:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191111073000.2957-1-amir73il@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Deepa Dinamani Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:56:40 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovl: fix timestamp limits To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:45 PM Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:06 AM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:48 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:30 AM Amir Goldstein 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