linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] x86: Fix vtime/file timestamp inconsistencies

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: <20100715133926.B8EE.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:41:59 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] x86: Fix vtime/file timestamp inconsistencies

> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 10:51 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 11:40 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > 
> > > > > Due to vtime calling vgettimeofday(), its possible that an application
> > > > > could call  time();create("stuff",O_RDRW);  only to see the file's
> > > > > creation timestamp to be before the value returned by time.
> > > > 
> > > > Just dumb question.
> > > > 
> > > > Almost application are using gettimeofday() instead time(). It mean
> > > > your fix don't solve almost application.
> > > 
> > > Correct,  filesystem timestamps and gettimeofday can still seem
> > > inconsistently ordered. But that is expected.
> > > 
> > > Because of granularity differences (one interface is only tick
> > > resolution, the other is clocksource resolution), we can't interleave
> > > the two interfaces (time and gettimeofday, respectively) and expect to
> > > get ordered results.
> > 
> > hmmm...
> > Yes, times() vs gettimeofday() mekes no sense. nobody want this. but
> > I don't understand why we can ignore gettimeofday() vs file-tiemstamp.
> 
> Oh.. and another bit worth mentioning again:
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE, ...) provides tick-granular output
> that should be able to be correctly interleaved with filesystem
> timestmaps. 
> 
> So if there's an application that is using gettimeofday() for logging
> and having problems trying to map the log timestmaps with filesystem
> timestamps, they can use clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE,...) to do
> so correctly.

Correct. but I disagree few bit . 1) application naturally assume time don't 
makes interleaving. so almost all applications don't have such care. 2) tick-granular fs
timestamp is only current implementaion. perhaps we will change it later. so, applications
don't want to assume fs timestamp granularity is equal to CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE. 



--
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/