Re: [PATCH] Fix integer overflow in badram_iter

The surrounding code already uses ULL instead of grub_uint64_t. ULL already is guaranteed >= 64 bits so I would expect this to work fine as is. Could you explain why grub_uint64_t cast is recommended? Amended patch with signoff below. Signed-off-by: Arjun Barrett --- grub-core/mmap/mmap.c | 5 +

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] datetime: Support dates outside of 1901..2038 range

Thank you for doing this, it worked perfectly for me when I tested it on x86-64 in a VM. Testing performed: 1. Set various files on FAT32 and Ext4 file systems with various dates in the future (2038, 2040, 2100, etc.) and confirmed correct date / time display via GRUB 'ls' command. 2. Ran your pro

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] date_unit_test: test dates outside of 32-bit unix range

Thank you for doing this, it worked perfectly for me when I tested it on x86-64 in a VM. Sincerely, Andrew On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 12:31 PM Vladimir Serbinenko wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko > --- > tests/date_unit_test.c | 35 ++- > 1 file change

[PATCH v2 2/2] date_unit_test: test dates outside of 32-bit unix range

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko --- tests/date_unit_test.c | 35 ++- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/date_unit_test.c b/tests/date_unit_test.c index 99774f199..a489fc3d8 100644 --- a/tests/date_unit_test.c +++ b/tests/date_un

[PATCH v2 1/2] datetime: Support dates outside of 1901..2038 range

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko --- grub-core/lib/datetime.c | 31 --- include/grub/datetime.h | 15 +++ 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/grub-core/lib/datetime.c b/grub-core/lib/datetime.c index 9120128ca..e4bdc5c4f 1006

[PATCH 1/2] datetime: Support dates outside of 1901..2038 range

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko --- grub-core/lib/datetime.c | 31 --- include/grub/datetime.h | 15 +++ 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/grub-core/lib/datetime.c b/grub-core/lib/datetime.c index 9120128ca..9badd53dd 1006

[PATCH 2/2] date_unit_test: test dates outside of 32-bit unix range

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko --- tests/date_unit_test.c | 35 ++- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/date_unit_test.c b/tests/date_unit_test.c index 99774f199..a42801936 100644 --- a/tests/date_unit_test.c +++ b/tests/date_un

Re: Feedback Request: Bug #63894 (2038 issue) Proposed Change

I have adjusted grub functions to extend the range, I'll send then later today Le sam. 17 août 2024, 17:20, Andrew Hamilton a écrit : > Thank you, I see now there are some functions I may be able to use > already in the GRUB gnulib, I will investigate that. > > Thank you for the quick feedback!

Re: Feedback Request: Bug #63894 (2038 issue) Proposed Change

Thank you, I see now there are some functions I may be able to use already in the GRUB gnulib, I will investigate that. Thank you for the quick feedback! - Andrew On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 9:03 AM Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > > No, it's license-incompatible. Please don't use that code.

Re: Feedback Request: Bug #63894 (2038 issue) Proposed Change

No, it's license-incompatible. Please don't use that code. Le sam. 17 août 2024, 16:44, Andrew Hamilton a écrit : > Hello, > > I'm thinking to try to address bug 63894 (grub_datetime2unixtime() > still has the year 2038 problem): > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63894 > > I confirmed the issue i

Feedback Request: Bug #63894 (2038 issue) Proposed Change

Hello, I'm thinking to try to address bug 63894 (grub_datetime2unixtime() still has the year 2038 problem): https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63894 I confirmed the issue is still partially present in include/grub/datetime.h... the following checks are still present and the issue mentioned local vari