linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 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: <20121207004910.GD27172@dastard>
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:49:10 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>
Cc:	yangsheng <sickamd@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"adilger@...ger.ca" <adilger@...ger.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update atime from future.

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:32PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> The point is that the behaviour before the relatime patch was that
> the kernel updated the atime to the current time as the kernel
> knows about it, it didn't make any decision about "the past" or
> "the future".
> 
> Relatime is about reducing the frequency of atime updates, not
> about deciding that one timestamp is more correct than another. 

That makes sense.

Indeed, that's what the commit message should say rather than
drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about what is a valid atime
without further justification.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/