linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Reduce ext4 timestamp warnings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 22:56:19 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Reduce ext4 timestamp warnings

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:39 PM Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 09:02, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > When ext4 file systems were created intentionally with 128 byte inodes,
> > the rate-limited warning of eventual possible timestamp overflow are
> > still emitted rather frequently.  Remove the warning for now.
> >
> > Discussion for whether any warning is needed,
> > and where it should be emitted, can be found at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1567523922.5576.57.camel@lca.pw/.
> > I can post a separate follow-up patch after the conclusion.
> >
> > Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
> > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
>
> I'd be in favor of a severely rare-limited warning in the actual case
> that Y2038 timestamps cannot be stored, but the current message is
> too verbose for now and I agree it is better to remove it while discussions
> on the best solution are underway.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>

Agreed completely.

Applied on top of the y2038 branch now, thanks a lot for the update!

This should be part of tomorrow's linux-next then.

       Arnd