On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:38:32PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Do you feel the same about preventing the time from reaching
> > KTIME_MAX?
>
> That's going to happen in ~500 years from now.
At any time if you include accidents and attacks on ser
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > > Applications are not allowed to rely on system time being sane?
> > > To me the current behavior looks like the kernel is throwing the
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Applications are not allowed to rely on system time being sane?
> > To me the current behavior looks like the kernel is throwing the
> > applications off a cliff, while it's the only t
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 October 2015 08:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > > The difference is that with the one-week step the kernel and userspace
> > > still agree on the current time and it is
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 08 October 2015 08:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > The difference is that with the one-week step the kernel and userspace
> > still agree on the current time and it is always valid from the kernel
> > point of view, abso
On Thursday 08 October 2015 08:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:10:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 October 2015 16:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > > Without the limit added by this patch make will go nuts just one week
> > > later when the 32-bit tim
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:10:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 October 2015 16:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Without the limit added by this patch make will go nuts just one week
> > later when the 32-bit time_t overflows to Dec 13 1901 and the files
> > will appear as 136 yea
On Wednesday 07 October 2015 16:23:44 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:47:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 October 2015 15:22:17 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > > This patch sets a maximum value of the system time to prevent the system
> > > time from getting too
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:47:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 October 2015 15:22:17 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > This patch sets a maximum value of the system time to prevent the system
> > time from getting too close to the overflow. The time can't be set to a
> > larger value. W
On Wednesday 07 October 2015 15:22:17 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On systems with 32-bit time_t there are quite a few problems that
> applications may have with time overflowing in year 2038. Beside getting
> to an unexpected state by not checking integer operations with time_t
> variables, some syst
On systems with 32-bit time_t there are quite a few problems that
applications may have with time overflowing in year 2038. Beside getting
to an unexpected state by not checking integer operations with time_t
variables, some system calls have unexpected behavior, e.g. the system
time can't be set b
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:17:36PM -0400, Justin Keller wrote:
> Is there a reason for "step = leap"?
It's there to not change the behavior when a leap second occurs, the
clock still needs to be stepped. I guess it could be optimized a bit,
if it used "if (unlikely(leap || tk->xtime_sec >= time_ma
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:31:54PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:41:28 +0200
> Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > larger value. When the maximum is reached in normal time accumulation,
> > the clock will be stepped back by one week.
>
> Which itself is open to exploits and d
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:41:28 +0200
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On systems with 32-bit time_t, it seems there are quite a few problems
> that applications may have with time overflowing in year 2038. Beside
Even ext4 is still broken for 2038.
> larger value. When the maximum is reached in normal t
Is there a reason for "step = leap"?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On systems with 32-bit time_t, it seems there are quite a few problems
> that applications may have with time overflowing in year 2038. Beside
> getting in an unexpected state by not checking integer o
On Wednesday 15 April 2015 17:41:28 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On systems with 32-bit time_t, it seems there are quite a few problems
> that applications may have with time overflowing in year 2038. Beside
> getting in an unexpected state by not checking integer operations with
> time_t variables, s
On systems with 32-bit time_t, it seems there are quite a few problems
that applications may have with time overflowing in year 2038. Beside
getting in an unexpected state by not checking integer operations with
time_t variables, some system calls have unexpected behavior, e.g. the
system time can'
17 matches
Mail list logo
