linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.

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]

Message-ID: <32922.1294173113@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:31:53 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	yangsheng <sickamd@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	swhiteho@...hat.com, sickadm@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] Update atime from future.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:13:37 MST, Andreas Dilger said:
> On 2011-01-04, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:56:58 +0800, yangsheng said:
> >> If atime has been wrong set to future, then it cannot
> >> be updated back to current time.
> >>
> >> +#define RELATIME_MARGIN (24 * 60 * 60)
> >
> > Nice patch overall.  Should this be a #define, or a CONFIG_ variable,
> > or a tweakable /proc/sys/fs variable?  Or am I senile and we thrashed
> > all this out once before when the relatime code landed?
> 
> I recall the consensus was that a /proc tunable was "too much" for the
> initial patch.

OK, in that case yangsheng's patch is probably good to go.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped