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, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 AE284C43331 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD7A21D7F for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HjWDyP1y" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726932AbfKLQtu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:49:50 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:41464 "EHLO mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726008AbfKLQtu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:49:50 -0500 Received: by mail-yb1-f195.google.com with SMTP id d95so7359865ybi.8; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:49:50 -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=VH0IV8aGbrpTn0hoyKLYQ3iTl4xm1QD6SGJDZ8VJTMc=; b=HjWDyP1y/u/zH21bTZLss9k/xLG/MDVISvep+jdTwKml7Yh6Gp/0qDdZhwDAjv/i76 9C+T5nlMKP2xQwcod1Ge/MB6auRbxvofix2DZ3fIc1eC8ZjMh2HInBAjGg/DsKETaAif g2Nhnql3QatPdYNfQaBKJ4Bedv6S8xS5sF8arFY2JzaS66Bd69yRSrzWkEhks96EQmM9 1bNmbWQFbwfck5pQDGvC7u0Y8tb3sNoKPqyVbpdKQwxZjypiI7BwlYKB3MDZewBAzj2N q7S8JI258KZjNmK8/9/8TM/g7ULcPVvsoBiDdxSSYr+huMvERqUe9atg6Fjm2Wk2fi+B 0g8Q== 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=VH0IV8aGbrpTn0hoyKLYQ3iTl4xm1QD6SGJDZ8VJTMc=; b=ic+qgzPWToQeRq7MjV6By0B6FO02NpfDyS/zxJORkLX2vGjrRgAxgG7kVB0pOTLIhy HS/Mma9jovJn4FgU+6gUC7X1yrOJ44ZbfdAl/e3irPQ1e6bNtbcaQ+ncaPK81j44+Q6t 1hCJMq4OXxNHZLYjkr9oq49Idk/KriuPovChf8PdCYqJnPLWm0PqK6M3bi5Yhl6NHP6N uprrLVJkRiC4TkgSLu5aqtcRYzRMQrNAAjP9lp3mxt9n7F5HJsfAVVWbUn0i6QBID8F5 eSXaNS0cqFxbIER4xKtBfmZ6mPZ+HjTk7urlMJL/HvAOV5nanGCrSrVu98GoCeWozsWc Ur1w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUJon3zYhaya3YJyJ/EbsLOJstfuyAs96i5MtyUhnSf89droyMR RRA6WtbqLWZMH9v0r5T5ZHH0mpEiNdT210vfVf8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyUylc/hgBQKJfoPaaTULDCLMKAoJPIizuIbhPGK+569S2aUOWdszOHroCTfUvlmmtO9JBLRAJR41h6chJPsjU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:c50c:: with SMTP id v12mr22582916ybe.428.1573577389566; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:49:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191111073000.2957-1-amir73il@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:49:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovl: fix timestamp limits To: Deepa Dinamani 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 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? Thanks, Amir.