From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH v5 2/5] vfs: Add checks for filesystem timestamp limits
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:35:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwxqwnY7QLA8hbMG8AvwdWp5i94Tc=NoXEK+dcQnxHLMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0_iRFODcbkkKirjSOxe-L5Nnk-2Pjp9icfbNye9ZzfRQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> Would it be ok to have a simple way of removing the time_t definition (e.g.
> by passing '-DREQUIRE_TIME64' to the compiler, but without the Kconfig
> option? That way, someone who wants to ship a product can at least
> find the obvious dependencies on stuff that remains broken.
How would you find them?
People don't necessarily use "time_t". They might use "int" or whatever.
There is absolutely zero point to making this some kind of crazy
config option, because such an option will prove absolutely *NOTHING*.
Seriously. This whole concept is completely stupid.
The only possible thing you can do is to
(a) have an actual test-suite
(b) set the time to 32+ bits
(c) see what breaks
because otherwise it seems entirely pointless.
And no, we're not adding random crazy source modifications for pointless crap.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] vfs: Add checks for filesystem timestamp limits
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:35:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwxqwnY7QLA8hbMG8AvwdWp5i94Tc=NoXEK+dcQnxHLMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0_iRFODcbkkKirjSOxe-L5Nnk-2Pjp9icfbNye9ZzfRQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> Would it be ok to have a simple way of removing the time_t definition (e.g.
> by passing '-DREQUIRE_TIME64' to the compiler, but without the Kconfig
> option? That way, someone who wants to ship a product can at least
> find the obvious dependencies on stuff that remains broken.
How would you find them?
People don't necessarily use "time_t". They might use "int" or whatever.
There is absolutely zero point to making this some kind of crazy
config option, because such an option will prove absolutely *NOTHING*.
Seriously. This whole concept is completely stupid.
The only possible thing you can do is to
(a) have an actual test-suite
(b) set the time to 32+ bits
(c) see what breaks
because otherwise it seems entirely pointless.
And no, we're not adding random crazy source modifications for pointless crap.
Linus
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-25 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-08 19:37 [PATCH v5 0/5] vfs: Add timestamp range check support Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] vfs: Add file timestamp range support Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] vfs: Add checks for filesystem timestamp limits Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 20:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-08 20:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-09 2:58 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-25 19:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-04-25 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-25 20:31 ` [Y2038] " Arnd Bergmann
2017-04-25 20:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-04-25 20:35 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2017-04-25 20:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-25 21:23 ` [Y2038] " Arnd Bergmann
2017-04-25 21:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-04-08 19:37 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] ext4: Initialize timestamps limits Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] vfs: Add timestamp_truncate() api Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] utimes: Clamp the timestamps before update Deepa Dinamani
2017-04-08 19:37 ` Deepa Dinamani
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='CA+55aFwxqwnY7QLA8hbMG8AvwdWp5i94Tc=NoXEK+dcQnxHLMg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=y2038@lists.linaro.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.