linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.

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]

Date:	Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:13:37 -0700
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	yangsheng <sickamd@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	swhiteho@...hat.com, sickadm@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.

On 2011-01-04, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:56:58 +0800, yangsheng said:
>> If atime has been wrong set to future, then it cannot
>> be updated back to current time.
>> 
>> +#define RELATIME_MARGIN (24 * 60 * 60)
> 
> Nice patch overall.  Should this be a #define, or a CONFIG_ variable,
> or a tweakable /proc/sys/fs variable?  Or am I senile and we thrashed
> all this out once before when the relatime code landed?

I recall the consensus was that a /proc tunable was "too much" for the initial patch.  An atime update interval of 1 day is sufficient for most applications, since they run daily to do file access scanning.  The #define was added because I dislike having multiple hard-coded values in any code.

I haven't heard of any complaints about the relatime update frequency, except for this "atime in the future" problem, so until that happens we may as well leave it as-is.

Cheers, Andreas

--
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