linux-kernel - Re: "beyond 2038" warnings from loopback mount is noisy

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: <CABeXuvp2F4cr_77UJDYVfQ=gD8QXn+t4X3Qxs6YbyMXYJYO7mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:47:54 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>
Subject: Re: "beyond 2038" warnings from loopback mount is noisy

> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > index 9e3ae3be3de9..5a971d1b6d5e 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > @@ -835,7 +835,9 @@ do {
> >                                  \
> >                 }
> >          \
> >         else    {\
> >                 (raw_inode)->xtime = cpu_to_le32(clamp_t(int32_t,
> > (inode)->xtime.tv_sec, S32_MIN, S32_MAX));    \
> > -               ext4_warning_inode(inode, "inode does not support
> > timestamps beyond 2038"); \
> > +               if (((inode)->xtime.tv_sec != (raw_inode)->xtime) &&     \
> > +                   ((inode)->i_sb->s_time_max > S32_MAX))
> >          \
> > +                       ext4_warning_inode(inode, "inode does not
> > support timestamps beyond 2038"); \
> >         } \
> >  } while (0)
>
> Sure, that's much less objectionable.

The reason it was warning for every update was because of the
ratelimiting. I think ratelimiting is not working well here. I will
check that part.

-Deepa