| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110111133314.GA10705@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:33:14 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com> Cc: yangsheng <sickamd@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future. return 1; > > + /* > > + * Is the previous atime value old than a day? If yes, > > * update atime: > > */ > > if ((long)(now.tv_sec - inode->i_atime.tv_sec) >= 24*60*60) > > I don't think this is a good plan for cluster filesystems, since if the > times on the nodes are not exactly synchronised (we do highly recommend > people run ntp or similar) then this might lead to excessive atime > updating. The current behaviour is to ignore atimes which are in the > future for exactly this reason, Well, would these "update storms" really be a problem? AFAICT they should be fairly non-frequent, and worst thing that can happen is that you'll do as many updates as different time settings, settling for the lowest value...? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists