linux-kernel - Re: [ 02/42] TTY: do not update atime/mtime on read/write

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: <20130430002117.GA4202@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:21:17 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [ 02/42] TTY: do not update atime/mtime on read/write

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 05:14:45PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:01:44PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > 3.8-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> I object. This breaks functionality I use every day (seeing who else is
> working on stuff with "w").
> 
> Furthermore, the patch does not actually fix the hole referenced (see
> ptmx-keystroke-latency.c on http://vladz.devzero.fr/013_ptmx-timing.php).
> I can still reproduce the timing capture even with this patch applied
> (in 3.9-rc8).

How?  There are no keystrokes being reported to other users, or did we
miss something with this patch?

> The grsec patch instead introdues another test within the inotify code
> (is_sidechannel_device()-related bits) -- untested by me, but probably
> more relevant.
> 
> Even 37b7f3c76595e23257f61bd80b223de8658617ee, the "regression fix",
> which Linus merged in for the 3.9 release, is still a regression for me.

And I applied that one as well.

> 60 seconds means somebody is asleep in my environment, and so is still
> the kind of thing that just pisses me off. I'd rather revert this whole
> thing.

Users taking a break for longer than a minute upset you?  What are you
really trying to keep track of here?

> I'd stand maybe 1 seconds as maximum granularity. You could do that with
> less code and no test.

Patch to show this?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/