linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] update ctime and mtime for mmaped 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: <1172083004.9108.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:36:44 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, staubach@...hat.com, hugh@...itas.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 19:28 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > This flag is checked in msync() and __fput(), and if set, the file
> > > times are updated and the flag is cleared
> > 
> > Why not also check inside vfs_getattr?
> 
> This is the minimum, that the standard asks for.
> 
> Note, your porposal would touch the times in vfs_getattr(), which
> means, that the modification times would depend on the time of the
> last stat() call, which is not really right, though it would still be
> conforming.
> 
> It is much saner, if the modification time is always the time of the
> last write() or msync().

I disagree. The above doesn't allow a program like 'make' to discover
whether or not the file has changed by simply calling stat(). Instead,
you're forcing a call to msync()+stat().

Cheers
  Trond

-
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/