Y2038

y2038@lists.linaro.org

1138 discussions

Re: [Y2038] y2038 backport to v5.4

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 03:00:24PM +0000, Roosen Henri wrote: > On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 16:35 +0200, gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:15:16PM +0000, Roosen Henri wrote: > > > On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 16:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 2:36 PM Roosen Henri < > > > > Henri.Roosen(a)ginzinger.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > > > > > I hope you are well and could answer me a quick question. > > > > > > > > > > I've read on the kernel mailing-list that initially there was > > > > > an > > > > > intention to backport the final y2038 patches to v5.4. We're > > > > > currently targeting to use the v5.4 LTS kernel for a project > > > > > which > > > > > should be y2038 compliant. > > > > > > > > > > I couldn't find all of the y2038-endgame patches in the current > > > > > v5.4-stable branch. Are there any patches still required to be > > > > > backported in order for v5.4 to be y2038 compliant, or can the > > > > > remaining patches be ignored (because of only cleanup?)? Else, > > > > > is > > > > > there still an intention to get the v5.4 LTS kernel y2038 > > > > > compliant? > > > > > > > > I don't think there are currently any plans to merge my y2038- > > > > endgame > > > > branch > > > > into the official linux-5.4 lts kernel, but you should be able to > > > > just pull from > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git/log/?h=… > > > > > > > > and get the same results. If you see any problems with that, > > > > please > > > > report > > > > that to me with Cc to the mailing list and perhaps gregkh, so I > > > > can > > > > see if > > > > I can resolve it by rebasing my patches, or if he would like to > > > > merge > > > > the > > > > patches. > > > > > > Pulling the y2038-endgame branch does lead to some conflicts, which > > > are > > > currently still kinda staightforward to solve. > > > > > > However I'd be very interested in getting this branch merged to > > > v5.4, > > > so we don't run into more difficult merge conflicts the coming > > > years > > > where the v5.4-LTS still gets stable updates (Dec, 2025) and > > > possibly > > > to get any related fixes from upstream. > > > > > > @Greg: any chance to get the y2038-endgame merged into v5.4.y? > > > > I have no idea what this really means, and what it entails, but odds > > are, no :) > > I fully understand, thanks for your statement on this. > > > > > Why not just use a newer kernel? Why are you stuck using a 5.4 > > kernel > > for a device that has to live in 2038? That feels very foolish to > > me... > > Oh I agree on that :) It's just that these are currently customer > requirements. Are you sure that customers really understand what they want? Usually they want a well-supported, stable, system. Why do they care about a specific kernel version? That feels odd. Good luck! greg k-h

5 years

Re: [Y2038] y2038 backport to v5.4

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:15:16PM +0000, Roosen Henri wrote: > On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 16:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 2:36 PM Roosen Henri < > > Henri.Roosen(a)ginzinger.com> wrote: > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > I hope you are well and could answer me a quick question. > > > > > > I've read on the kernel mailing-list that initially there was an > > > intention to backport the final y2038 patches to v5.4. We're > > > currently targeting to use the v5.4 LTS kernel for a project which > > > should be y2038 compliant. > > > > > > I couldn't find all of the y2038-endgame patches in the current > > > v5.4-stable branch. Are there any patches still required to be > > > backported in order for v5.4 to be y2038 compliant, or can the > > > remaining patches be ignored (because of only cleanup?)? Else, is > > > there still an intention to get the v5.4 LTS kernel y2038 > > > compliant? > > > > I don't think there are currently any plans to merge my y2038-endgame > > branch > > into the official linux-5.4 lts kernel, but you should be able to > > just pull from > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git/log/?h=… > > > > and get the same results. If you see any problems with that, please > > report > > that to me with Cc to the mailing list and perhaps gregkh, so I can > > see if > > I can resolve it by rebasing my patches, or if he would like to merge > > the > > patches. > > Pulling the y2038-endgame branch does lead to some conflicts, which are > currently still kinda staightforward to solve. > > However I'd be very interested in getting this branch merged to v5.4, > so we don't run into more difficult merge conflicts the coming years > where the v5.4-LTS still gets stable updates (Dec, 2025) and possibly > to get any related fixes from upstream. > > @Greg: any chance to get the y2038-endgame merged into v5.4.y? I have no idea what this really means, and what it entails, but odds are, no :) Why not just use a newer kernel? Why are you stuck using a 5.4 kernel for a device that has to live in 2038? That feels very foolish to me... thanks, greg k-h

5 years

Drive World Conference and Expo 2020 - Attendees List

by Katie Davis

Hi, Worried about the event got cancelled/ Postponed? You can still purchase the pre registered attendees list of Drive World Conference & Expo. These contacts are permission based and the recipients have agreed to be solicited. Each record will contain details like: Contact Name, Title, Phone Number, Physical address, State/City, Company Name, Company URL, and most importantly verified email addresses. Let me know if you are interested. Regards, Katie Davis | Inside Sales, USA & Europe| Email : <mailto:katied@globaltradevisitors.com> katied(a)globaltradevisitors.com "If you don't wish to receive emails from us reply back with LEAVE OUT"

5 years, 2 months

Survey on Change Management

by Change Management

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: https://ymlptr9.net/zxMlt3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings Many organizations fail to respond to external and internal environment which in turn affect the well-being of the organization and may cause total shutdown and loss of business such as Nokia case. Other organizations are considering the Marketing Mix along with the change best practices to insure continued prosperity and revenues.The study will also conclude the best leadership style that should be associated with a change. This research is done to investigates the best practices of organizational change and the best leadership theory that could be used to implement change. It aims at helping organizations in implementing a successful change, as well as the marketing and leadership strategies of change adopted to insure successful implantation of the change. This study seeks to identify the most recurrent factors that drives organizational change, and to illustrate methodologies for an effective change. We kindly ask you to complete this quick 12 Questons Suervy in this regard. https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ChangeManagementleadershipstyle/ Many Thanks _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: https://ymlptr9.net/ugwhmwyqgsguqhjhbsgessyggemyse Powered by YourMailingListProvider

5 years, 3 months

50,000pcs KN95 Masks Ready in stock to send

by KN95 Masks

We have Ready in Stock KN95 Masks. * CE EN149:2001+A1:2009 Compliance * FDA Listed * Daily Production Capacity 500K Pcs * 1USD for Bulk Ordering Welcome to visit our website: www.n95-masks.cc http://ris.eventbay.net/campaigns/bl895zxqrq6f0/track-url/zh5416phqyc5b/42f… to find out more. Thank you and Best Regards, Yours James Zhang | Sales Manager If you would prefer not receiving our emails, please click here http://ris.eventbay.net/campaigns/bl895zxqrq6f0/track-url/zh5416phqyc5b/124… to unsubscribe

5 years, 3 months

Trying Debian/armhf rebootstrap with time64

by Arnd Bergmann

As discussed before, I tried using the rebootstrap tool [1] to see what problems come up once the entire distro gets rebuilt. Based on Lukasz' recommendation, I tried the 'y2038_edge' branch with his experimental glibc patches [2], using commit c2de7ee9461 dated 2020-02-17. Here is a rough summary of what I tried, what worked, and what problems I ran into: * Building a Debian package from this was fairly straightforward, using the 2.31 branch in the package git repository[3] after replacing the debian/patches/git-updates.diff file with one generated from [2] and disabling the hurd patches because of conflicts. * After installing the modified x86 glibc package, I ran into a runtime bug in [4], which needs to pass AT_FDCWD instead of 0 to avoid ENOTDIR errors. * Bootstrapping a regular time32 Debian armhf with this libc took me a few days to get right, but that was mostly for getting familiar with rebootstrap and running into known issues unrelated to time64 or the glibc changes. * Actually building a time64 version of glibc turned out to be harder, including some issues discussed on the libc mailing list[5]: - Always setting -D_TIME_BITS=64 in the global compiler flags for the distro breaks both the native 64-bit (x86_64) build and the 32-bit build, as glibc itself expects to be built without this. - Removing the time32 symbols from the glibc shared object did not work as they are still used (a lot) internally, and by the testsuite. - I tried converting all the internal symbols to use the time64 variants with the correct types (e.g. __clock_gettime64() instead of __clock_gettime()), but then ran into a lot of APIs that take timespec/timeval/... arguments and pass them down into internal functions. These seem to all be bugs that require adding a time64 version of the external ABI. - After I abandoned that approach, I continued with a simple patch to features.h that sets _TIME_BITS/_FILE_OFFSET_BITS based on '#if !defined _LIBC && __TIMESIZE == 32', which ignores the bugs I found earlier but got me a lot further. - Building the i386 glibc with that patch, I ran into over 150 testsuite failures [6]. This looked like there was a fundamental mistake on my side, but after I looked into a few of the failures, most seemed to be either glibc or testsuite bugs that have to be addressed individually. I considered giving up at this point, but as Lukasz has said that he had successfully built a working system using Yocto, I kept going anyway and marked these all as expected failures in the debian package. * There are a couple of noteworthy issues in glibc-y2038 I'd like to point out in particular, though I'm sure these are not the only important ones: - The clock_nanosleep() prototype needed a '__THROW' annotation to complete the build. - The nptl and sunrpc portions have numerous interfaces with 'timeval' or 'timespec' arguments that each cause an ABI break. - stat()/fstat()/lstat(), nanosleep(), wait3()/wait4(), ppoll_chk() are some of the other interfaces that take a time_t based argument and need to grow a time64 version to avoid an ABI mismatch. - The timeval prototype appears to be broken, as it's missing padding on architectures without native alignment of __time64 (e.g. i386) and on all big-endian architectures. - some testcases hang in futex_wait() or clock_nanosleep() because of incorrect timeout arguments, presumably from type mismatches. * There is an open question regarding the name of the Debian architecture. For my experiments, I kept using the 'armhf' name unmodified, though there seems to be a general feeling that using a different name would be required to address the broad incompatibilities between time32 and time64 versions of all the libraries in the distro. Gradually changing them won't work because of the timeline and the number of affected libraries. However, the new name of the distro also implies having a distinct target triplet, which must then be known by glibc along with everything else using config.guess/config.sub. I expect this topic to require a lot more discussion. * Continuing with the rebootstrap build despite the known glibc issues and the open question on the architecture name went surprisingly well, only two out of the 152 source packages I built had compile-time problems: - building the final gcc failed in libsanitizer, which has compile-time checks to ensure some libc data structures have the expected layout. It noticed that 'struct timeb' and 'struct dirent' are different based on _TIME_BITS and _FILE_OFFSET_BITS. I disabled the checks to be able to continue. To this properly, the library has to learn about the new data structures as well. I opened a bug report against the library[7]. - libpreludecpp12 failed to build because of checks for changes in the exported functions, which are different with time64. I disabled the checks. Once we have agreed on a new debian architecture name, the symbols can be made arch specific. * After everything was built, I tried installing the packages into a chroot with qemu-debootstrap, which failed because I had configured the glibc to assume it's running on a new kernel while the qemu-user binary I had lacks the new syscalls. I believe this is fixed in upstream qemu, but did not try that. * Trying to install again I used a clean debian-arm64 installation running in qemu-system-aarch64, and attempted installing the armhf packages using a regular debootstrap, running the 32-bit binaries in compat mode of a recent arm64 kernel. This partially worked and I could chroot into the system and use a shell, but ultimately the debootstrap did not complete because of errors. I saw that 'tar' had failed because of the stat() glibc ABI mismatch breaking its private gnulib fdutimens() implementation, and this is where I gave up. I have spent more time on this now than I had planned, and don't expect to do further work on it anytime soon, but I hope my summary is useful to others that are going to need this later. I can obviously share my patches and build artifacts if anyone needs them. There are two additional approaches that would likely get a Debian bootstrap further, but that I have not tried as they were previously dismissed: * Adding a time64 armhf as a separate (incompatible) target in glibc that defines __TIMESIZE==64 and a 64-bit __time_t would avoid most of the remaining ABI issues and put armhf-time64 in the same category as riscv32 and arc, but this idea was so far rejected by the glibc maintainers. Depending on how hard this turns out to be, it could be used to get to the point of self-hosting though, and help find time64 related bugs in the rest of the distro. * Doing the bootstrap using a musleabihf target instead of gnueabihf would avoid the current issues internal to glibc-y2038, but instead lead to new problems with packages that do not currently work with musl. Adelie Linux has shown that it's already possible to build a useful distro using musl and time64[8], and this would sidestep the question of the target triplet. While it would also help find and fix additional bugs in packages, and make an interesting unoffical Debian target, I don't see it replacing the existing armhf port any time soon. For additional information about the Debian plans, see the article on LWN[9] that summarizes the discussion started by Steve McIntyre [10]. Arnd [1] https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap [2] https://github.com/lmajewski/y2038_glibc/tree/y2038_edge [3] https://salsa.debian.org/glibc-team/glibc/-/tree/glibc-2.31 [4] https://github.com/lmajewski/y2038_glibc/commit/2f72ea2b6f6ee [5] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-February/111375.html [6] https://pastebin.com/fJYV2stF [7] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45138 [8] https://wiki.adelielinux.org/wiki/Project:Time64 [9] https://lwn.net/Articles/812767/ [10] https://lwn.net/ml/debian-devel/20200204131410.GF3043@tack.einval.com/

5 years, 5 months

Re: [Y2038] Trying Debian/armhf rebootstrap with time64

by Arnd Bergmann

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:12 PM Lukasz Majewski <lukma(a)denx.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:22 PM Rich Felker <dalias(a)libc.org> wrote: > > > > - Removing the time32 symbols from the glibc shared object did > > > > not work as they are still used (a lot) internally, and by the > > > > testsuite. > > > > > > That they're used internally sounds like a major problem; anywhere > > > they're being used internally potentially has hidden Y2038 bugs. > > > This is also why I'm concerned about glibc's approach of not > > > building itself with _TIME_BITS=64, and just undefining it or doing > > > something else in the wrapper files for the legacy time32 symbols. > > > > I thought this was the long-term plan. Working on the ABI first and > > then changing the implementation may help speed up the timeline > > before distro-level work can start, but OTOH removing all the 32-bit > > codepaths from the implementation first makes it more likely to find > > all relevant bits. > > If I understood the question correctly - the problem is with having > glibc ABI consistent. This requires having 64 bit types for relevant > functions. For example the __clock_settime64 accepts struct > __timespec64 parameter which: > > - Is aliased to "normal" struct timespec on machines with > __WORDSIZE==64 (x32 is a special case) > > - The struct __timespec64 is used on 32 bit machines > > As a result the glibc is ready to handle 64 bit time always (with > clock_settime on __WORDSIZE==64 or clock_settime64 otherwise), as > exported struct timespec fields size vary depending on the machine for > which glibc is built. I think we all understand the need to duplicate each interface that passes a data type derived from time_t, and how the aliasing works, The point above is purely for the internal implementation. The approach that I have picked for the kernel and Rich did for musl was that internal code never sees the old __time_t definition for any data structure or function call, those are only used to define the wrappers for 32-bit architectures that provide the legacy interfaces. Arnd

5 years, 6 months

Re: [Y2038] Trying Debian/armhf rebootstrap with time64

by Arnd Bergmann

[some mailing lists appear to have classified the earlier mail as spam, it was quite long and contained a lot of links. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2020/03/msg00032.html for the start of the thread if you did not get that] On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:37 PM Lukasz Majewski <lukma(a)denx.de> wrote: > > - stat()/fstat()/lstat(), nanosleep(), wait3()/wait4(), ppoll_chk() > > are some of the other interfaces that take a time_t based > > argument and need to grow a time64 version to avoid an ABI > > mismatch. > > The stat() and friends will use statx internally, which supports 64 bit > time from the outset. > Unfortunately, it hasn't been yet converted. > > As statx was added in 4.1 (IIRC) - after the minimal supported Linux > kernel version is bumped to this version (from 3.2 as now) it all will > be fixed. The problem I had with these was not on the kernel API side (I still have CONFIG_COMPAT_32BIT_TIME enabled for now) but on the application side. In particular, the 'struct stat' definition (when __USE_XOPEN2K8 is defined) contains struct timespec st_atim; and similar fields that are interpreted using 64-bit time_t in the application including the header, but with 32-bit time_t inside of the ___fxstat64() implementation in glibc. The problem is caused by the mismatched ABI, not by the time_t overflow, in the same way that happens in the nptl library callers and in the other interfaces I mentioned. This is also what seems to cause most of the testcase failures when the tests are built with __TIME_BITS=64. > > - The timeval prototype appears to be broken, as it's missing > > padding on architectures without native alignment of __time64 > > (e.g. i386) and on all big-endian architectures. > > > > You mean the one "exported" to the system or one, which is internal to > glibc (from ./include/time.h)? I mean in the installed headers, where I get (after preprocessing) typedef long long __time64_t; typedef long __suseconds_t; struct timeval { __time64_t tv_sec; __suseconds_t tv_usec; }; On i386 and m68k, this leads to a 12 byte structure when the kernel interfaces expect a 16 byte structure. All other 32-bit architectures add four byte padding at the end, so the size is correct, but on big-endian systems, kernel also expects padding *before* tv_usec, in the same way as the timespec definition does. IIRC the best way to handle this is with a 64-bit suseconds_t, e.g. by adding a __suseconds64_t defined the same way as __time64_t. > > I have spent more time on this now than I had planned, and don't > > expect to do further work on it anytime soon, but I hope my summary > > is useful to others that are going to need this later. I can > > obviously share my patches and build artifacts if anyone needs them. > > Could you upload them to any server? (kernel.org or github)? I have uploaded the modified debian-glibc and rebootstrap sources to https://git.linaro.org/people/arnd/ now, this should be all that's needed to recreate the build, using these steps: - build an x86-64 debian glibc-2.31 package (binary plus source) based on the glibc package data - create a pbuilder instance with that available as a source to apt - log into the pbuilder and run the modified bootstrap.sh according to information on the pbuilder web page. The binary packages I created are not as useful, as they would not work with any build of glibc, neither the version I built, nor any fixed one. I could find a way to send that to you in private, but it's hundreds of megabytes. Unfortunately I lost the build logs during a crash yesterday. > > There are two additional approaches that would likely get a Debian > > bootstrap further, but that I have not tried as they were previously > > dismissed: > > > > * Adding a time64 armhf as a separate (incompatible) target in glibc > > that defines __TIMESIZE==64 and a 64-bit __time_t would avoid > > most of the remaining ABI issues and put armhf-time64 in the same > > category as riscv32 and arc, but this idea was so far rejected by > > the glibc maintainers. > > As fair as I know riscv32 and arc will use generic syscall interface. > The arm32 bit doesn't support it - so the code from those two > aforementioned ports will not be used. The differences between the generic syscall interface and the arm version are much smaller than ABI differences between the ABIs for 32-bit __time_t and the __time_t == __time64_t version. In particular, as such a new port could mandate a minimum kernel of v5.1, it could just use all the time64 syscalls, the split sysvipc and statx as a baseline. Arnd

5 years, 6 months

[GIT PULL] compat-ioctl fix for v5.6

by Arnd Bergmann

The following changes since commit 77b9040195dea3fcddf19e136c9e99a501351778: compat_ioctl: simplify the implementation (2020-01-03 09:42:52 +0100) are available in the Git repository at: git://git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git tags/compat-ioctl-fix for you to fetch changes up to 0a061743af93f472687b8c69b0d539d1f12f3fd2: compat_ioctl: fix FIONREAD on devices (2020-02-08 18:02:54 +0100) ---------------------------------------------------------------- compat-ioctl fix for v5.6 One patch in the compat-ioctl series broke 32-bit rootfs for multiple people testing on 64-bit kernels. Let's fix it in -rc1 before others run into the same issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arnd Bergmann (1): compat_ioctl: fix FIONREAD on devices fs/ioctl.c | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

5 years, 7 months

[PATCH] generic/402: fix for updated behavior of timestamp limits

by Deepa Dinamani

The mount behavior will not be altered because of the unsupported timestamps on the filesystems. Adjust the test accordingly. An updated series to be posted after the merge window is hosted at <https://github.com/deepa-hub/vfs/tree/limits> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel(a)gmail.com> --- common/rc | 36 +++++++++--------- tests/generic/402 | 87 ++++++++++++++++--------------------------- tests/generic/402.out | 2 +- 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-) diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index 25203bb4..39a2deb0 100644 --- a/common/rc +++ b/common/rc @@ -1959,16 +1959,9 @@ _run_aiodio() return $status } -# this test requires y2038 sysfs switch and filesystem -# timestamp ranges support. -_require_y2038() +_require_timestamp_range() { local device=${1:-$TEST_DEV} - local sysfsdir=/proc/sys/fs/fs-timestamp-check-on - - if [ ! -e $sysfsdir ]; then - _notrun "no kernel support for y2038 sysfs switch" - fi local tsmin tsmax read tsmin tsmax <<<$(_filesystem_timestamp_range $device) @@ -1980,23 +1973,32 @@ _require_y2038() _filesystem_timestamp_range() { local device=${1:-$TEST_DEV} + u32max=$(((1<<32)-1)) + s32min=-$((1<<31)) + s32max=$(((1<<31)-1)) + s64max=$(((1<<63)-1)) + s64min=$((1<<63)) + case $FSTYP in - ext4) + ext2) + echo "$s32min $s32max" + ;; + ext3|ext4) if [ $(dumpe2fs -h $device 2>/dev/null | grep "Inode size:" | cut -d: -f2) -gt 128 ]; then - echo "-2147483648 15032385535" + printf "%d %d\n" $s32min 0x37fffffff else - echo "-2147483648 2147483647" + echo "$s32min $s32max" fi ;; - xfs) - echo "-2147483648 2147483647" - ;; jfs) - echo "0 4294967295" + echo "0 $u32max" ;; - f2fs) - echo "-2147483648 2147483647" + xfs) + echo "$s32min $s32max" + ;; + btrfs) + echo "$s64min $s64max" ;; *) echo "-1 -1" diff --git a/tests/generic/402 b/tests/generic/402 index f742fedd..dd136ec2 100755 --- a/tests/generic/402 +++ b/tests/generic/402 @@ -4,15 +4,10 @@ # # FS QA Test 402 # -# Tests to verify policy for filesystem timestamps for -# supported ranges: -# 1. Verify filesystem rw mount according to sysctl -# timestamp_supported. -# 2. Verify timestamp clamping for timestamps beyond max -# timestamp supported. +# Test to verify filesystem timestamps for supported ranges. # -# Exit status 1: either or both tests above fail. -# Exit status 0: both the above tests pass. +# Exit status 1: test failed. +# Exit status 0: test passed. # seq=`basename $0` seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq @@ -49,47 +44,59 @@ check_stat() prev_timestamp="$timestamp;$timestamp" if [ $prev_timestamp != $stat_timestamp ]; then echo "$prev_timestamp != $stat_timestamp" | tee -a $seqres.full + return 1 fi + return 0 } run_test_individual() { + fail=0 file=$1 timestamp=$2 update_time=$3 # check if the time needs update if [ $update_time -eq 1 ]; then - echo "Updating file: $file to timestamp `date -d @$timestamp`" >> $seqres.full + echo "Updating file: $file to timestamp $timestamp" >> $seqres.full $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "utimes $timestamp 0 $timestamp 0" $file if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "Failed to update times on $file" | tee -a $seqres.full + fail=1 fi fi - tsclamp=$(($timestamp>$tsmax?$tsmax:$timestamp)) - echo "Checking file: $file Updated timestamp is `date -d @$tsclamp`" >> $seqres.full - check_stat $file $tsclamp + tsclamp=$((timestamp<tsmin?tsmin:timestamp>tsmax?tsmax:timestamp)) + echo "Checking file: $file Updated timestamp is $tsclamp" >> $seqres.full + if ! check_stat $file $tsclamp; then + fail=1 + fi + return $fail } run_test() { + fail=0 update_time=$1 n=1 for TIME in "${TIMESTAMPS[@]}"; do - run_test_individual ${SCRATCH_MNT}/test_$n $TIME $update_time + if ! run_test_individual ${SCRATCH_MNT}/test_$n $TIME $update_time; then + fail=1 + fi ((n++)) done + + return $fail } _scratch_mkfs &>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "mkfs failed" -_require_y2038 $SCRATCH_DEV +_require_timestamp_range $SCRATCH_DEV read tsmin tsmax <<<$(_filesystem_timestamp_range $SCRATCH_DEV) -echo min supported timestamp $tsmin $(date --date=@$tsmin) >> $seqres.full -echo max supported timestamp $tsmax $(date --date=@$tsmax) >> $seqres.full +echo min supported timestamp $tsmin >> $seqres.full +echo max supported timestamp $tsmax >> $seqres.full # Test timestamps array @@ -97,45 +104,14 @@ declare -a TIMESTAMPS=( $tsmin 0 $tsmax + $((tsmax/2)) $((tsmax+1)) - 4294967295 - 8589934591 - 34359738367 ) -# Max timestamp is hardcoded to Mon Jan 18 19:14:07 PST 2038 -sys_tsmax=2147483647 -echo "max timestamp that needs to be supported by fs for rw mount is" \ - "$((sys_tsmax+1)) $(date --date=@$((sys_tsmax+1)))" >> $seqres.full - -read ts_check <<<$(cat /proc/sys/fs/fs-timestamp-check-on) - _scratch_mount result=$? -if [ $ts_check -ne 0 ]; then - echo "sysctl filesystem timestamp check is on" >> $seqres.full - # check for mount failure if the minimum requirement for max timestamp - # supported is not met. - if [ $sys_tsmax -ge $tsmax ]; then - if [ $result -eq 0 ]; then - echo "mount test failed" | tee -a $seqres.full - exit - fi - else - if [ $result -ne 0 ]; then - echo "failed to mount $SCRATCH_DEV" | tee -a $seqres.full - exit - fi - fi -else - # if sysctl switch is off then mount should succeed always. - echo "sysctl filesystem timestamp check is off" >> $seqres.full - if [ $result -ne 0 ]; then - echo "failed to mount $SCRATCH_DEV and timestamp check is off" >> $seqres.full - exit - fi -fi +status=0 # Begin test case 1 echo "In memory timestamps update test start" >> $seqres.full @@ -143,7 +119,9 @@ echo "In memory timestamps update test start" >> $seqres.full # update time on the file update_time=1 -run_test $update_time +if ! run_test $update_time; then + status=1 +fi echo "In memory timestamps update complete" >> $seqres.full @@ -162,12 +140,13 @@ update_time=0 echo "On disk timestamps update test start" >> $seqres.full # Re-run test -run_test $update_time +if ! run_test $update_time; then + status=1 +fi echo "On disk timestamps update test complete" >> $seqres.full -echo "y2038 inode timestamp tests completed successfully" +echo "inode timestamp tests completed status $status" # success, all done -status=0 -exit +exit $status diff --git a/tests/generic/402.out b/tests/generic/402.out index 6c5b9308..4500e6c7 100644 --- a/tests/generic/402.out +++ b/tests/generic/402.out @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ QA output created by 402 -y2038 inode timestamp tests completed successfully +inode timestamp tests completed status 0 -- 2.17.1

5 years, 7 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Y2038