From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752506AbbJHGXs (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:23:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41512 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751650AbbJHGXr (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:23:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:23:44 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, y2038@lists.linaro.org, John Stultz , Thomas Gleixner , Prarit Bhargava , Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Limit system time to prevent 32-bit time_t overflow Message-ID: <20151008062344.GO5778@localhost> References: <1444224137-32510-1-git-send-email-mlichvar@redhat.com> <5256796.UZaLfWxmcd@wuerfel> <20151007142343.GM5778@localhost> <5753784.UXVo9jVTVp@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5753784.UXVo9jVTVp@wuerfel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:10:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 07 October 2015 16:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > Without the limit added by this patch make will go nuts just one week > > later when the 32-bit time_t overflows to Dec 13 1901 and the files > > will appear as 136 years in the future. How is that better? > > Not better or worse at all, that was my point. The time is still > wrong either way, whether you step back by a week or 136 years. The difference is that with the one-week step the kernel and userspace still agree on the current time and it is always valid from the kernel point of view, absolute timers can be set, etc. -- Miroslav Lichvar