linux-kernel - Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

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: <20100817205441.200ab9a4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:54:41 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

> I am having trouble seeing why this is a better idea than a simple
> mount option to obtain decent resolution timestamps.  (Not that we
> can't have both...)  Is there any objection to the mount option I am
> proposing?

I have none. I doubt I'd use it as it would be too expensive on system
performance for some of my boxes, while having an incrementing value is
cheap.

I don't see the two as conflicting - in fact the bits you need to do the
mount option are the bits you also need to do the counter version as
well. One fixes ordering at no real cost, the other adds high res
timestamps, both are useful.

Alan
--
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/