linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] INITRAMFS: Add option to preserve mtime from INITRAMFS cpio images

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]

Date:	Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:08:32 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	"Frans Meulenbroeks" <fransmeulenbroeks@...il.com>
Cc:	"Nye Liu" <nyet@....com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nye Liu" <nyet@...t.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] INITRAMFS: Add option to preserve mtime from INITRAMFS cpio images

"Frans Meulenbroeks" <fransmeulenbroeks@...il.com> writes:

> "Invaluable" != "nice to know".

Well, I guess it's as "invaluable" for embedded systems running on
initramfs as mtime on regular filesystems in case of normal systems.

Is mtime on ext3 "invaluable" or just "nice to know"?

> I admit that the net effect of this on boot time is marginal (but some
> might consider having mtime a marginal benefit), and 100 cents also
> make a dollar, so my suggestion would be to either reject this patch
> or make it optional (e.g. depending on some debug config flag).

It depends on how marginal is it. If it makes unpacking 1% slower I
can see no need for being optional. 10% - maybe it should?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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/