From: Charalampos Mitrodimas <charmitro@posteo.net>
To: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>
Cc: "slava@dubeyko.com" <slava@dubeyko.com>,
"glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de" <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
"frank.li@vivo.com" <frank.li@vivo.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hfs/hfsplus: fix timestamp wrapped issue
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 02:00:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2bjhn81n2.fsf@posteo.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b7b7a970926f56a3742cb76e394e9fb3d79b0eb.camel@ibm.com>
Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com> writes:
X-TUID: LHfQOjL/T+3i
> On Tue, 2026-02-17 at 02:39 +0000, Charalampos Mitrodimas wrote:
>> Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> writes:
>>
>> > The xfstests' test-case generic/258 fails to execute
>> > correctly:
>> >
>> > FSTYP -- hfsplus
>> > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 hfsplus-testing-0001 6.15.0-rc4+ #8 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu May 1 16:43:22 PDT 2025
>> > MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/loop51
>> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/loop51 /mnt/scratch
>> >
>> > generic/258 [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see xfstests-dev/results//generic/258.out.bad)
>> >
>> > The main reason of the issue is the logic:
>> >
>> > cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET)
>> >
>> > At first, we take the lower 32 bits of the value and, then
>> > we add the time offset. However, if we have negative value
>> > then we make completely wrong calculation.
>> >
>> > This patch corrects the logic of __hfsp_mt2ut() and
>> > __hfsp_ut2mt (HFS+ case), __hfs_m_to_utime() and
>> > __hfs_u_to_mtime (HFS case). The HFS_MIN_TIMESTAMP_SECS and
>> > HFS_MAX_TIMESTAMP_SECS have been introduced in
>> > include/linux/hfs_common.h. Also, HFS_UTC_OFFSET constant
>> > has been moved to include/linux/hfs_common.h. The hfs_fill_super()
>> > and hfsplus_fill_super() logic defines sb->s_time_min,
>> > sb->s_time_max, and sb->s_time_gran.
>> >
>> > sudo ./check generic/258
>> > FSTYP -- hfsplus
>> > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 hfsplus-testing-0001 6.19.0-rc1+ #87 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Feb 16 14:48:57 PST 2026
>> > MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/loop51
>> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/loop51 /mnt/scratch
>> >
>> > generic/258 29s ... 39s
>> > Ran: generic/258
>> > Passed all 1 tests
>> >
>> > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_hfs-2Dlinux-2Dkernel_hfs-2Dlinux-2Dkernel_issues_133&d=DwIBAg&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=q5bIm4AXMzc8NJu1_RGmnQ2fMWKq4Y4RAkElvUgSs00&m=0fT-uL56OPndiS3viO0tbIofDhce7l_DvqX2Ig5e11E9sRGSZHesLvgpGvaEGpvj&s=52rC3TXLKWz8arNKZMySDx-vwms5z-Md0bnvP6tGkEM&e=
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>
>> > cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
>> > cc: Yangtao Li <frank.li@vivo.com>
>> > cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
>> > ---
>> > fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h | 17 ++++-------------
>> > fs/hfs/super.c | 4 ++++
>> > fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h | 13 ++++---------
>> > fs/hfsplus/super.c | 4 ++++
>> > include/linux/hfs_common.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> > 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h b/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h
>> > index ac0e83f77a0f..7d529e6789b8 100644
>> > --- a/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h
>> > +++ b/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h
>> > @@ -229,21 +229,11 @@ extern int hfs_mac2asc(struct super_block *sb,
>> > extern void hfs_mark_mdb_dirty(struct super_block *sb);
>> >
>> > /*
>> > - * There are two time systems. Both are based on seconds since
>> > - * a particular time/date.
>> > - * Unix: signed little-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970
>> > - * mac: unsigned big-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1904
>> > - *
>> > - * HFS implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
>> > - * traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
>> > - * time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
>> > - * under HFS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
>> > + * time helpers: convert between 1904-base and 1970-base timestamps
>> > */
>> > -#define HFS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
>> > -
>> > static inline time64_t __hfs_m_to_utime(__be32 mt)
>> > {
>> > - time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFS_UTC_OFFSET);
>> > + time64_t ut = (time64_t)be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFS_UTC_OFFSET;
>> >
>> > return ut + sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60;
>> > }
>> > @@ -251,8 +241,9 @@ static inline time64_t __hfs_m_to_utime(__be32 mt)
>> > static inline __be32 __hfs_u_to_mtime(time64_t ut)
>> > {
>> > ut -= sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60;
>> > + ut += HFS_UTC_OFFSET;
>> >
>> > - return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFS_UTC_OFFSET);
>> > + return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut));
>> > }
>> > #define HFS_I(inode) (container_of(inode, struct hfs_inode_info, vfs_inode))
>> > #define HFS_SB(sb) ((struct hfs_sb_info *)(sb)->s_fs_info)
>> > diff --git a/fs/hfs/super.c b/fs/hfs/super.c
>> > index 97546d6b41f4..6b6c138812b7 100644
>> > --- a/fs/hfs/super.c
>> > +++ b/fs/hfs/super.c
>> > @@ -341,6 +341,10 @@ static int hfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
>> > sb->s_flags |= SB_NODIRATIME;
>> > mutex_init(&sbi->bitmap_lock);
>> >
>> > + sb->s_time_gran = NSEC_PER_SEC;
>> > + sb->s_time_min = HFS_MIN_TIMESTAMP_SECS;
>> > + sb->s_time_max = HFS_MAX_TIMESTAMP_SECS;
>> > +
>> > res = hfs_mdb_get(sb);
>> > if (res) {
>> > if (!silent)
>> > diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h
>> > index 5f891b73a646..3554faf84c15 100644
>> > --- a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h
>> > +++ b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h
>> > @@ -511,24 +511,19 @@ int hfsplus_read_wrapper(struct super_block *sb);
>> >
>> > /*
>> > * time helpers: convert between 1904-base and 1970-base timestamps
>> > - *
>> > - * HFS+ implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
>> > - * traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
>> > - * time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
>> > - * under HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
>> > */
>> > -#define HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
>> > -
>> > static inline time64_t __hfsp_mt2ut(__be32 mt)
>> > {
>> > - time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET);
>> > + time64_t ut = (time64_t)be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFS_UTC_OFFSET;
>> >
>> > return ut;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static inline __be32 __hfsp_ut2mt(time64_t ut)
>> > {
>> > - return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET);
>> > + ut += HFS_UTC_OFFSET;
>> > +
>> > + return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut));
>> > }
>> >
>> > static inline enum hfsplus_btree_mutex_classes
>> > diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/super.c b/fs/hfsplus/super.c
>> > index 592d8fbb748c..dcd61868d199 100644
>> > --- a/fs/hfsplus/super.c
>> > +++ b/fs/hfsplus/super.c
>> > @@ -487,6 +487,10 @@ static int hfsplus_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
>> > if (!sbi->rsrc_clump_blocks)
>> > sbi->rsrc_clump_blocks = 1;
>> >
>> > + sb->s_time_gran = NSEC_PER_SEC;
>> > + sb->s_time_min = HFS_MIN_TIMESTAMP_SECS;
>> > + sb->s_time_max = HFS_MAX_TIMESTAMP_SECS;
>> > +
>> > err = -EFBIG;
>> > last_fs_block = sbi->total_blocks - 1;
>> > last_fs_page = (last_fs_block << sbi->alloc_blksz_shift) >>
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/hfs_common.h b/include/linux/hfs_common.h
>> > index dadb5e0aa8a3..816ac2f0996d 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/hfs_common.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/hfs_common.h
>> > @@ -650,4 +650,22 @@ typedef union {
>> > struct hfsplus_attr_key attr;
>> > } __packed hfsplus_btree_key;
>> >
>> > +/*
>> > + * There are two time systems. Both are based on seconds since
>> > + * a particular time/date.
>> > + * Unix: signed little-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970
>> > + * mac: unsigned big-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1904
>> > + *
>> > + * HFS/HFS+ implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
>> > + * traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
>> > + * time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
>> > + * under HFS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
>> > + */
>>
>> Since this is replacing the wrapping behavior with a linear 1904-2040
>> mapping, should we update this comment to match? It still describes the
>> old "2040 to 2106" wrapping semantics.
>>
>
> Frankly speaking, I don't quite follow what do you mean here. This patch doesn't
> change the approach. It simply fixes the incorrect calculation logic. Do you
> mean that this wrapping issue was the main approach? Currently, I don't see what
> needs to be updated in the comment.
Hi,
The comment says "time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any
on-disk timestamp under HFS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between
2040 and 2106". That was the old behavior via the (u32) cast.
Your patch changes (u32) to (time64_t) in __hfsp_mt2ut/__hfs_m_to_utime,
which removes that wrapping. For Mac time 0 (Jan 1, 1904):
Old: (u32) (0 - 2082844800) = 2212122496 -> 2040
New: (time64_t) 0 - 2082844800 = -2082844800 -> 1904
The new s_time_min/s_time_max also confirm the range is now 1904-2040,
not 1970-2106. So the comment no longer matches the code.
>
> Thanks,
> Slava.
>
>> Cheers,
>> C. Mitrodimas
>>
>> > +#define HFS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
>> > +
>> > +/* January 1, 1904, 00:00:00 UTC */
>> > +#define HFS_MIN_TIMESTAMP_SECS -2082844800LL
>> > +/* February 6, 2040, 06:28:15 UTC */
>> > +#define HFS_MAX_TIMESTAMP_SECS 2212122495LL
>> > +
>> > #endif /* _HFS_COMMON_H_ */
--
C. Mitrodimas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-18 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-16 23:35 [PATCH] hfs/hfsplus: fix timestamp wrapped issue Viacheslav Dubeyko
2026-02-17 2:39 ` Charalampos Mitrodimas
2026-02-17 18:11 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2026-02-18 2:00 ` Charalampos Mitrodimas [this message]
2026-02-18 20:56 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2026-02-19 0:44 ` Charalampos Mitrodimas
2026-02-19 23:39 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m2bjhn81n2.fsf@posteo.net \
--to=charmitro@posteo.net \
--cc=Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com \
--cc=frank.li@vivo.com \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slava@dubeyko.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox