[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903261329040.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:31:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@...wei.com>,
Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Force upper bound for setting
CLOCK_REALTIME
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:36:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > It is reasonable to force an upper bound for the various methods of setting
> > CLOCK_REALTIME. Year 2262 is the absolute upper bound. Assume a maximum
> > uptime of 30 years which is plenty enough even for esoteric embedded
> > systems. That results in an upper bound of year 2232 for setting the time.
>
> The patch looks good to me.
>
> I like this approach better than using a larger value closer to the
> overflow (e.g. one week) and stepping the clock back automatically
> when the clock reaches that time, but I suspect it might possibly
> break more tests (or any unusual applications messing with time) as a
> much larger interval is now EINVAL.
I'm fine with breaking a few tests on the way rather than having undefined
behaviour and the constant flow of patches tackling the wrong end of the
stick.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists