linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and write

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: <20141121214245.GG7112@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:42:45 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: split update_time() into update_time() and
 write_time()

Out of curiosity, why does btrfs_update_time() need to call
btrfs_root_readonly()?  Why can't it just depend on the
__mnt_want_write() call in touch_atime()?

Surely if there are times when it's not OK to write into a btrfs file
system and mnt_is_readonly() returns false, the VFS is going to get
very confused abyway.

If the btrfs_update_time() is not necessary, then we could drop
btrfs_update_time() and update_time() from the inode operations
entirely, and depend on the VFS-level code in update_time().

	      	     	    	      	   - Ted
--
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