linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: use timespec64 for i

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:23:39 +0300
From:   Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>, Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@...cle.com>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: use timespec64 for i_otime



On 20.06.2018 22:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20.06.2018 19:38, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:34:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> While the regular inode timestamps all use timespec64 now, the
>>>> i_otime field is btrfs specific and still needs to be converted
>>>> to correctly represent times beyond 2038.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>>
>>> This patch addresses the remaining type conversions, so I'm going to
>>> merge it, thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Actually for the sake of consistency we might want to merge this series
>> altogether. As it stands we now use ktime_get_seconds and
>> ktime_get_real_seconds (from Allen's patch). I haven't dug to see what's
>> the difference (if any) between the two .
> 
> I just checked again and see that Allen's patch addresses the first two
> of my three patches, but he picked a different approach for
> transaction_kthread(): My patch moved to CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
> while his version only changed the to time64_t but kept the
> CLOCK_REALTIME behavior. It's a small difference, but I think
> my version is slightly better. My patch 2/3 is identical to his version.

I agree, in the transaction_kthread we are only interested in knowing
whether a fixed time windows (commit_internval) has passed. So monotonic
makes more sense here.
> 
> If you like, I can also rebase my patch 1/3 on top of his patch and
> change it to CLOCK_MONOTONIC.

Please do.

> 
>          Arnd
>