linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <8770583.6XeZxCxOY8@wuerfel>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:24:42 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	logfs@...fs.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com, coda@...cmu.edu, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, codalist@...emann.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lftan@...era.com,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready

On Wednesday 04 June 2014 13:30:32 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 03 June 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Just ot be pedantic, inodes don't need 96 bit timestamps - some
> > > filesystems can *support up to* 96 bit timestamps. If the kernel
> > > only supports 64 bit timestamps and that's all the kernel can
> > > represent, then the upper bits of the 96 bit on-disk inode
> > > timestamps simply remain zero.
> > 
> > I meant the reverse: since we have file systems that can store
> > 96-bit timestamps when using 64-bit kernels, we need to extend
> > 32-bit kernels to have the same internal representation so we
> > can actually read those file systems correctly.
> > 
> > > If you move the filesystem between kernels with different time
> > > ranges, then the filesystem needs to be able to tell the kernel what
> > > it's supported range is.  This is where having the VFS limit the
> > > range of supported timestamps is important: the limit is the
> > > min(kernel range, filesystem range). This allows the filesystems
> > > to be indepenent of the kernel time representation, and the kernel
> > > to be independent of the physical filesystem time encoding....
> > 
> > I agree it makes sense to let the kernel know about the limits
> > of the file system it accesses, but for the reverse, we're probably
> > better off just making the kernel representation large enough (i.e.
> > 96 bits) so it can work with any known file system.
> 
> Depends...  96 bit handling may get prohibitive on 32-bit archs.
> 
> The important point here is for the kernel to be able to represent the 
> time _range_ used by any known filesystem, not necessarily the time 
> _precision_.
> 
> For example, a 64 bit representation can be made of 40 bits for seconds 
> spanning 34865 years, and 24 bits for fractional seconds providing 
> precision down to 60 nanosecs.  That ought to be plenty good on 32 bit 
> systems while still being cheap to handle.

I have checked earlier that we don't do any computation on inode
time stamps in common code, we just pass them around, so there is
very little runtime overhead. There is a small bit of space overhead
(12 byte) per inode, but that structure is already on the order of
500 bytes.

For other timekeeping stuff in the kernel, I agree that using some
64-bit representation (nanoseconds, 32/32 unsigned seconds/nanoseconds,
...) has advantages, that's exactly the point I was making earlier
against simply extending the internal time_t/timespec to 64-bit
seconds for everything.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/