lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [Y2038] [PATCH 13/16] hfs/hfsplus: use 64-bit inode timestamps
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 7:00 AM Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2019, at 12:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > * There are two time systems. Both are based on seconds since
> > * a particular time/date.
> > - * Unix: unsigned lil-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970
> > + * Unix: signed little-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970
> > * mac: unsigned big-endian since 00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1904
> > *
> > + * HFS implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
> > + * traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
> > + * time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
> > + * under 2082844800U (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
> > */
> > -#define __hfs_u_to_mtime(sec) cpu_to_be32(sec + 2082844800U - sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60)
> > -#define __hfs_m_to_utime(sec) (be32_to_cpu(sec) - 2082844800U + sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60)
>
> I believe it makes sense to introduce some constant instead of hardcoded value (2082844800U and 60).
> It will be easier to understand the code without necessity to take a look into the comments.
> What do you think?

Every other user of sys_tz.tz_minuteswest uses a plain '60', I think that one
is easy enough to understand from context. Naming the other constant
is a good idea, I've now folded the change below into my patch.

Thanks for the review!

Arnd

8<-----
diff --git a/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h b/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h
index 26733051ee50..f71c384064c8 100644
--- a/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h
+++ b/fs/hfs/hfs_fs.h
@@ -247,22 +247,24 @@ extern void hfs_mark_mdb_dirty(struct super_block *sb);
*
* HFS implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
* traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
* time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
- * under 2082844800U (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
+ * under HFS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
*/
+#define HFS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
+
static inline time64_t __hfs_m_to_utime(__be32 mt)
{
- time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - 2082844800U);
+ time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFS_UTC_OFFSET);

return ut + sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60;
}

static inline __be32 __hfs_u_to_mtime(time64_t ut)
{
ut -= sys_tz.tz_minuteswest * 60;

- return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + 2082844800U);
+ return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFS_UTC_OFFSET);
}
#define HFS_I(inode) (container_of(inode, struct hfs_inode_info, vfs_inode))
#define HFS_SB(sb) ((struct hfs_sb_info *)(sb)->s_fs_info)

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h
index 22d0a22c41a3..3b03fff68543 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h
@@ -538,20 +538,22 @@ int hfsplus_read_wrapper(struct super_block *sb);
*
* HFS+ implementations are highly inconsistent, this one matches the
* traditional behavior of 64-bit Linux, giving the most useful
* time range between 1970 and 2106, by treating any on-disk timestamp
- * under 2082844800U (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
+ * under HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET (Jan 1 1970) as a time between 2040 and 2106.
*/
+#define HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET 2082844800U
+
static inline time64_t __hfsp_mt2ut(__be32 mt)
{
- time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - 2082844800U);
+ time64_t ut = (u32)(be32_to_cpu(mt) - HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET);

return ut;
}

static inline __be32 __hfsp_ut2mt(time64_t ut)
{
- return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + 2082844800U);
+ return cpu_to_be32(lower_32_bits(ut) + HFSPLUS_UTC_OFFSET);
}

/* compatibility */
#define hfsp_mt2ut(t) (struct timespec64){ .tv_sec = __hfsp_mt2ut(t) }
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-13 09:08    [W:0.096 / U:4.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site