Re: another attempt at Y2038
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, at 16:45, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>> I think the hard part here is knowing who to send the patches to.
>> Unmaintained file systems are particularly tricky, in this case I
>> would have used
>>
>> To: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
>> To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> Cc: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
>> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: y2038@lists.linaro.org
>
> Well, that's quite disjoint from the list which i figured out:
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> axboe@kernel.dk
> jejb@linux.ibm.com
> martin.petersen@oracle.com
>
This would be the correct list for the cdrom driver patches,
my list above would be for the isofs time64 patch.
>> Can you rebase the patch on top of v6.1-rc1 and send it to
>> this list of people?
>
> I know the word "rebase" but cannot promise that i can fill it with
> substance soon ...
>
> What kernel branches should i choose for sr and for isofs ?
It's generally ok to just use the latest -rc1 (right now 6.1-rc1)
as the base, unless a maintainer asks you to use their tree
as a base.
>> I mainly care about the y2038 issue here,
>
> If you want to do us both a favor then bring the changes from
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=800627#38
> into the kernel.
> Feel free to take my reasoning and demonstration text. The code change is
> trivial.
Done now. I've left you as author and first Signed-off-by
though. While the change itself is trivial, the important bit
is identifying the problem, and you did that.
> It might be worth to verify my claims:
>
> The only callers of iso_date() are in isofs/inode.c and isofs/rock.c
> and put the result into struct inode.i_{a,c,m}time.tv_sec which is
> of type time64_t.
> The time value of iso_date() essentially stems from mktime64().
>
> and to exercise the demonstration by a xorriso-made ISO.
I could immediately tell that your patch is correct when I saw it.
Arnd
Reply to: