[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12c095e595836a7ff7f2c7b2a32cb5544dd29b55.camel@codethink.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:30:43 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, y2038@...ts.linaro.org,
arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [Y2038] [PATCH 05/20] utimes: Clamp the timestamps before update
On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 18:49 -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> POSIX is ambiguous on the behavior of timestamps for
> futimens, utimensat and utimes. Whether to return an
> error or silently clamp a timestamp beyond the range
> supported by the underlying filesystems is not clear.
>
> POSIX.1 section for futimens, utimensat and utimes says:
> (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/futimens.html)
>
> 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.
>
> If the tv_nsec field of a timespec structure has the special
> value UTIME_NOW, the file's relevant timestamp shall be set
> to the greatest value supported by the file system that is
> not greater than the current time.
>
> [EINVAL]
> A new file timestamp would be a value whose tv_sec
> component is not a value supported by the file system.
>
> The patch chooses to clamp the timestamps according to the
> filesystem timestamp ranges and does not return an error.
> This is in line with the behavior of utime syscall also
> since the POSIX page(http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/utime.html)
> for utime does not mention returning an error or clamping like above.
>
> Same for utimes http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/utimes.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
> ---
> fs/utimes.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/utimes.c b/fs/utimes.c
> index 350c9c16ace1..4c1a2ce90bbc 100644
> --- a/fs/utimes.c
> +++ b/fs/utimes.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ static int utimes_common(const struct path *path, struct timespec64 *times)
> int error;
> struct iattr newattrs;
> struct inode *inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
> + struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
> struct inode *delegated_inode = NULL;
>
> error = mnt_want_write(path->mnt);
> @@ -36,16 +37,24 @@ static int utimes_common(const struct path *path, struct timespec64 *times)
> if (times[0].tv_nsec == UTIME_OMIT)
> newattrs.ia_valid &= ~ATTR_ATIME;
> else if (times[0].tv_nsec != UTIME_NOW) {
> - newattrs.ia_atime.tv_sec = times[0].tv_sec;
> - newattrs.ia_atime.tv_nsec = times[0].tv_nsec;
> + newattrs.ia_atime.tv_sec =
> + clamp(times[0].tv_sec, sb->s_time_min, sb->s_time_max);
> + if (times[0].tv_sec == sb->s_time_max || times[0].tv_sec == sb->s_time_min)
This is testing the un-clamped value.
> + newattrs.ia_atime.tv_nsec = 0;
> + else
> + newattrs.ia_atime.tv_nsec = times[0].tv_nsec;
> newattrs.ia_valid |= ATTR_ATIME_SET;
> }
>
> if (times[1].tv_nsec == UTIME_OMIT)
> newattrs.ia_valid &= ~ATTR_MTIME;
> else if (times[1].tv_nsec != UTIME_NOW) {
> - newattrs.ia_mtime.tv_sec = times[1].tv_sec;
> - newattrs.ia_mtime.tv_nsec = times[1].tv_nsec;
> + newattrs.ia_mtime.tv_sec =
> + clamp(times[1].tv_sec, sb->s_time_min, sb->s_time_max);
> + if (times[1].tv_sec >= sb->s_time_max || times[1].tv_sec == sb->s_time_min)
Similarly here, for the minimum.
I suggest testing for clamping like this:
if (newattrs.ia_atime.tv_sec != times[0].tv_sec)
...
if (newattrs.ia_mtime.tv_sec != times[1].tv_sec)
...
Ben.
> + newattrs.ia_mtime.tv_nsec = 0;
> + else
> + newattrs.ia_mtime.tv_nsec = times[1].tv_nsec;
> newattrs.ia_valid |= ATTR_MTIME_SET;
> }
> /*
--
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street
Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists