linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC][BUG] updating the ctime and mtime time stamps in msync()

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: <20080110104543.398baf5c@bree.surriel.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:45:43 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	"Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com>
Cc:	"Jakob Oestergaard" <jakob@...hought.net>,
	"Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC][BUG] updating the ctime and mtime time stamps in
 msync()

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:59 +0300
"Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com> wrote:

> Indeed, if msync() is called with MS_SYNC an explicit sync is
> triggered, and Rik's suggestion would work. However, the POSIX
> standard requires a call to msync() with MS_ASYNC to update the
> st_ctime and st_mtime stamps too. No explicit sync of the inode data
> is triggered in the current implementation of msync(). Hence Rik's
> suggestion would fail to satisfy POSIX in the latter case.

Since your patch is already changing msync(), has it occurred
to you that your patch could change msync() to do the right
thing?

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/