Re: [RFC 01/32] fs: introduce new 'struct inode_time'

Arnd Bergmann
2014-05-31T14:54:54Z

On Saturday 31 May 2014 02:03:38 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 01:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NEW_INODE_TIME
> > +/*
> > + * This is the type we use internally in the kernel to represent
> > + * absolute times in file system metadata.
> > + * This structure must not leak out to user space, and new interfaces
> > + * should be using 64-bit types right away.
> > + */
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Variant a) using unsigned seconds lets us extend the life span
> > + * for another 69 years beyond 2038.
> > + */
> > +struct inode_time {
> > + unsigned long tv_sec;
> > + long tv_nsec;
> > +};
>
> This now differs between 32- and 64-bit systems, and on 32-bit systems
> some timestamps well within the range of representation of current
> systems just became unrepresentable, which is something that I thought
> people were objecting very strongly to.

It really depends on the file system. As you pointed out, I was reading
the ext2/ext3 and xfs code incorrectly, so my assumption when I wrote this
was that they already used the same type, with a 1970-2106 window, rather
than the regular signed Unix epoch.

> > +#elif 0
> > +/*
> > + * This variant can represent the widest range of times, but also
> > + * bloats 'struct inode' a little more.
> > + */
> > +struct inode_time {
> > + long long tv_sec __attribute__((packed));
> > + int tv_nsec;
> > +};
>
> Seriously, though, can we really impose constraints stricter than what
> the filesystems themselves do? It seems we ought to be able to
> represent whatever time the filesystem can represent... (modulo some
> kind of window control as Y2038 or any other break point approaches.)

Just to make sure, do you say we should be using the 'long long/int'
struct, or something else?

Arnd