linux-kernel - Re: Drop cache has no effect?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ac5mtcc7.fsf@duaron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:31:04 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Drop cache has no effect?

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> writes:

>>> 
>>> That's dirty area, vfat has one read-only bit only. Yes, I also think
>>> this is strange behaviour. But, I worry app is depending on the
>>> current behaviour, because this is pretty old behaviour.
>>> 
>>> Umm.., do someone have any strong reason? I'll make patch at this
>>> weekend, and please test it in -mm tree for a bit long time...?
>>
>>It is pretty weird that permission bits on vfat can magically change in
>>response to memory pressure.
>
> Well, the same happened for procfs in the past (when one was able to chmod it,
> in current kernels it is forbidden.)

IIRC, at least 2.4 doesn't allow it, it's rather new.

> It seems the best thing ATM, no?

I also think it's good. But it wouldn't be good reason for breaking app...
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/