linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 02/18] xstat: Add a pair of system calls to make extended file stats available [ver #6]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTik8bhdLHlM_vX1qdWzOW23GmiMJSAMyRkEz7QIS@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:07:05 -0400
From:	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Volker.Lendecke@...net.de, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] xstat: Add a pair of system calls to make extended 
	file stats available [ver #6]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Volker Lendecke
>> <Volker.Lendecke@...net.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> The nice thing about this is also that if this is supposed
>>> to be fully usable for Windows clients, the birthtime needs
>>> to be changeable. That's what NTFS semantics gives you, thus
>>> Windows clients tend to require it.
>>
>> Ok. So it's not really a creation date, exactly the same way ctime
>> isn't at all a creation date.
>>
>> And maybe that actually hints at a better solution: maybe a better
>> model is to create a new per-thread flag that says "do ctime updates
>> the way windows does them".
>>
>> So instead of adding another "btime" - which isn't actually what even
>> windows does - just admit that the _real_ issue is that Unix and
>> Windows semantics are different for the pre-existing "ctime".
>>
>> The fact is, windows has "access time", "modification time" and
>> "creation time" _exactly_ like UNIX. It's just that the ctime has
>> slightly different semantics in windows vs unix. So quite frankly,
>> it's totally insane to introduce a "birthtime", when that isn't even
>> what windows wants, just because people cannot face the actual real
>> difference.
>>
>> Tell me why we shouldn't just do this right?
>>
>>                Linus
>
> I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I believe NTFS has a
> number of timestamps, not just 3.
>
> This blog post references 8 in the left hand column.
>
> The 4 standard (most common) ones are:
>
> File last access
> File last modified
> File created
> MFT last modified
>
> My understanding is that "MFT last modified" has semantics very
> similar to Linux ctime.
>
> But there is not a generic equivalent to NTFS created.
>
> Thus if trying to have the Linux kernel match NTFS semantics for the
> benefit of Samba is the goal, it seems a new field should be preferred
> instead of having linux ctime try to do different jobs.
>
> Greg

I forgot the blog post url:

http://blogs.sans.org/computer-forensics/2010/04/12/windows-7-mft-entry-timestamp-properties/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html