this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
83 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

10629 readers
334 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev
83
Linux NTFS3 Driver Will Now Support Timestamps Prior To 1970 (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/linux@programming.dev
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

While NTFSPLUS continues to be developed as a new and modern NTFS open-source driver for Linux systems, at the moment NTFS3 from Paragon Software remains the most capable NTFS file-system driver within the mainline kernel. For the Linux 6.19 merge window a variety of fixes have landed for this driver.

While likely to not see too much use in practice, the NTFS3 driver with Linux 6.19 can now support timestamps prior to the year 1970. The first change noted for NTFS3 in the new kernel is pre-Epoch timestamps support for handling dates prior to the start of Unix time on 1 January 1970. NTFS3 had been relying on an unsigned 64-bit type but has now switched to a signed 64-bit type for coping with pre-epoch timestamps. The issue was raised by the xfstests program testing the file-system. But for anyone that may happen to have pre-1970 timestamps, Linux 6.19 fixes things up for NTFS3.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chrisbit@leminal.space 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Won't switching from an unsigned 64-bit integer to a signed one of the same size effectively halve how far into the future they can handle dates, exhausting it in 2038?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The 2038 problem is from using a 32 bit int

[–] chrisbit@leminal.space 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're right, I was thinking about 32-bit timestamps. Definitely not an issue for 64-bits.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hundreds of billions of years should be sufficient t

[–] chrisbit@leminal.space 1 points 1 week ago

Won't somebody think of the Eloi?

[–] khleedril@cyberplace.social 2 points 1 week ago

@FishFace @chrisbit ... and halving the range of a 64-bit number effectively makes it 63-bit. That will give us plenty of time still!

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

You only need one sign bit right? So I think you are only losing 1 bit. Not 32.