From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07911927 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 21:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usmailout2.samsung.com (mailout2.w2.samsung.com [211.189.100.12]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EC7F201D7 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 21:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from uscpsbgex3.samsung.com (u124.gpu85.samsung.co.kr [203.254.195.124]) by mailout2.w2.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0N5600CJE8GSD0B0@mailout2.w2.samsung.com> for ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 17:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <53695159.60107@partner.samsung.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 14:17:13 -0700 From: Daniel Phillips MIME-version: 1.0 To: Theodore Ts'o , Arnd Bergmann References: <5367D989.1000504@linaro.org> <20140506125741.GB17586@thunk.org> <536921B5.8090100@linaro.org> <5252732.F3YIzHDqI3@wuerfel> <20140506201959.GD5012@thunk.org> In-reply-to: <20140506201959.GD5012@thunk.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: John Stultz , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Dealing with 2038 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/06/2014 01:19 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 08:20:47PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Medical equipment (and I assume military, which is often in the same >> category) is probably a big thing. I remember we had a big discussion >> about a product at a former employer when a customer asked for support >> beyond 2038. I think we ended up saying that the hardware is fine but >> no supported distro would handle this. > The question for the kernel summit is what sort of solutions can we > suggest where we as kernel developers could help provide a solution > for this problem? > > If the answer is "the kernel is fine (or could be trivially made > fine)" but the problems are all at the glibc and/or distro level, then > it's a problem, but I'm not sure we'd be able to make progress on > solving it in this venue. > Hi Ted, At minimum, the collective kernel voice has a great soapbox to stand on, it would not make sense to waste that, and no doubt there will always be more that could be done on the kernel side. For example, the kernel has a definitive vantage point to witness all 32 bit timestamps coming in and going out with the sign bit set. Perhaps some logging mechanism would be helpful in setting up audit systems to use in sandbox testing and triage on Jan 1, 2038, with a view to clawing back the sign bit. Regards, Daniel