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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 9DC4CC43603 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7047D2465E for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:40:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576744850; bh=ZF2IkJQJu2JuoOwO1H8iWOQb1qsWX2H0062pdGRfz9w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=b0NxMVx2208OV+LTn0i9ADUUZ7jWsJg4qpqmqX/51rtK8OGQw9cshd6EU3f1ssa+W 9EfDTM2jpxAc7ex6odHwxP4DpGDN+x+GGhWw1X/+U0fpm10RAfXH6pqwK7G5zMcFy+ meRXPXxh21Iqvf2xni4eZ8lm4LWmM2xxDd4UD3YA= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726656AbfLSIku (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 03:40:50 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44374 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726463AbfLSIku (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 03:40:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25EDD24650; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:40:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576744848; bh=ZF2IkJQJu2JuoOwO1H8iWOQb1qsWX2H0062pdGRfz9w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BzWLmnbnfALLFzFgyvy/ERBUCON0j7qC01rIGHMc7ItVAGq3pkPbg8QpjrmE37hIZ sdE72W/niP1eyV4oNK3BOp5oIGwypPnwkKFl2lBMhB62z7KgeoswMhS1JODLekKM8F oAv88jZDgkedpHr2MozvADkplRGh4EFYDguOR1bc= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:40:46 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Amir Goldstein , Deepa Dinamani , Sasha Levin , y2038 Mailman List , fstests , Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits Message-ID: <20191219084046.GA1026636@kroah.com> References: <20190719041231.26500-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:28:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > I don't think there is a clear policy about being friendly to testing > > less that master kernels in xfstest (Eryu?), but IMO we should try to > > accommodate > > this use case, because it is in the best interest of everyone that stable kernel > > will be regularly tested with xfstests with as little noisy failures > > as possible. > > I think what makes this one particularly hard is that there are most likely > people that do care about the failure on older kernels being reported and > would rather backport the kernel changes into their product kernels > to have them behave sanely. > > I'm also not sure if we could just backport the changes to stable > kernels after all. > > Greg, do you have an opinion on whether the 19 patches from > v5.3-rc6 to cba465b4f982 can be considered stable material? > > The best argument that I have seen in favor of treating it as a bugfix > is that the posx man pages require that "The file's relevant timestamp shall > be set to the greatest value supported by the file system that is not greater > than the specified time"[1], and this is something that Linux has always > done wrong before the series (we overflow and underflow out-of-range > arguments to a value that is both file system and CPU architecture > specific). > > The main argument against backporting would be that 19 patches > is too much, I think each patch in the series would qualify on its own. > Changing the layout of 'struct super_block' also breaks the module > binary interface, which will annoy some distros that care about this, > but I don't think it's stopping us from adding the patch to a stable > kernel. > > Arnd > > [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/futimens.html Ugh, that's a mess. Why not just use 5.4 if people really care about this type of thing? But yes, on their own, each individual patch would be fine for stable, it's just that I would want someone to "own" the backport and testing of such a thing. If for no other reason than to have someone to "blame" for when things go wrong and get them to fix up the fallout :) Who really really wants this in their older kernels? And are those same people already taking all of the stable updates for those kernels as well? thanks, greg k-h