Re: [Y2038] Fifth draft of the Y2038 design document

[Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> Good idea, thanks! We currently do the checking separately from
> the copying, but doing the two together is a good cleanup and also
> helps the places that currently lack a range check (typically in
> drivers). We have three different checks on a timespec at the moment
> (no check on tv_sec range, tv_sec must be positive, or tv_sec must
> be within the 400 year range of 64-bit nanoseconds), but the
> check for the nanoseconds is always the same.

I'd expect two different versions of the nanoseconds check (one for utimes 
functions that allows UTIME_OMIT and UTIME_NOW, one for other uses that 
doesn't).  (utimes functions are also a case where a negative tv_sec is 
perfectly reasonable, but EINVAL is needed if the value is outside a 
filesystem-specific range - "A new file timestamp would be a value whose 
tv_sec component is not a value supported by the file system.".)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com