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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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 4DC4BC2D0A3 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBD92087E for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="Roi8VJ6Z" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725763AbgJ2V7H (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:59:07 -0400 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:49488 "EHLO userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725372AbgJ2V7H (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 17:59:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09TLmdaX077536; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:04 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=X0SfZcHSRqdkpO9bJKmgjJUlaN2oFNyWXcrXMX/DkkE=; b=Roi8VJ6ZkObsPqZ+MUyPHs2cGVF8twufcvfddTYV2O+QmCl3QWWYmFPDP1BjthLshj35 PpQOn7sRwBHMOg7dZ8sOBjWvYDtIwf18mt/OKACENWvNO6SM3RMfyt0XuOPVALdJgjfL Hst2yD5dk9r0IaPTRpCrwqyPB0PgpA5rvktELOO/R24a0F8qqNE4ImiggtM2Gwg117zo KK+3ipJwzEKtKhtvjJKz7W3eblFkjYnNSPTlMrPIeRGBtFC71Db6V15guXX+ZC8qjgik KL41yK+mtF8yInl71ooD1TWNw5yEbnMxuyafH75QDmUf5MnqZAWAEOlCpIW4KtBBdQXP Rg== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34dgm4cux8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:04 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09TLjRJu049323; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:04 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34cx6yyr75-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:04 +0000 Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09TLx3NG000568; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:59:03 GMT Received: from localhost (/10.159.244.77) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 14:59:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 14:59:02 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Eryu Guan , linux-xfs , fstests , Deepa Dinamani Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] generic: check userspace handling of extreme timestamps Message-ID: <20201029215902.GL1061252@magnolia> References: <160382543472.1203848.8335854864075548402.stgit@magnolia> <160382544101.1203848.15837078115947156573.stgit@magnolia> <20201029205543.GC1061252@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9789 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=1 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010290150 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9789 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=1 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010290150 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:40:00PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:02 PM Darrick J. Wong > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:34:57PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:25 PM Darrick J. Wong > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > > > These two tests ensure we can store and retrieve timestamps on the > > > > extremes of the date ranges supported by userspace, and the common > > > > places where overflows can happen. > > > > > > > > They differ from generic/402 in that they don't constrain the dates > > > > tested to the range that the filesystem claims to support; we attempt > > > > various things that /userspace/ can parse, and then check that the vfs > > > > clamps and persists the values correctly. > > > > > > So this test will fail when run on stable kernels before the vfs > > > clamping changes > > > and there is no require_* to mitigate that failure. > > > > Yes, that is the intended outcome. Those old kernels silently truncate > > the high bits from those timestamps when inodes are flushed to disk, and > > the only user-visible evidence of this comes much later when the system > > reboots and suddenly the timestamps are wrong. Clamping also seems a > > little strange, but at least it's immediately obvious. > > > > It is very surprising that you could set a timestamp of 2 Apr 2500 on > > ext2, ls your shiny futuristic timestamp, reboot, and have it become > > 5 Nov 1955. Only Marty McFly would be amused. > > > > OK. So we can call it a bug in old kernels that is not going to be fixed > in stable updates. The minimum we can do for stable kernel testers is > provide a decent way to exclude the tests for clamping. > > I guess 'check -x bigtime' is decent enough. > I might have named the group 'timelimit' but I can live with 'bigtime'. > > So with fix for the rest of my minor nits, you may add: Ok, I've fixed them all. I also added warnings to 721 and 722 that the test is expected to fail on pre-5.4 kernels. Thanks for reviewing! --D > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein > > Thanks, > Amir.