From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755535AbbJHJj0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:39:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48670 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755452AbbJHJjZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:39:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:39:23 +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: <20151008093923.GQ5778@localhost> References: <1444224137-32510-1-git-send-email-mlichvar@redhat.com> <5753784.UXVo9jVTVp@wuerfel> <20151008062344.GO5778@localhost> <5836683.t4iPTifntz@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5836683.t4iPTifntz@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 Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 08 October 2015 08:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > 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. > > Ok, I can see that as an improvement, but it still seems to give > a false sense of safety, and I feel we really should not have any code > rely on this behavior. Applications are not allowed to rely on system time being sane? To me the current behavior looks like the kernel is throwing the applications off a cliff, while it's the only thing that can fly :). -- Miroslav Lichvar