linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ceph: initialize superblock s_time

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]

Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:41:07 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>,
        "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc:     ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ceph: initialize superblock s_time_gran to 1

On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 14:51 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Having granularity set to 1us results in having inode timestamps with a
> accurancy different from the fuse client (i.e. atime, ctime and mtime will
> always end with '000').  This patch normalizes this behaviour and sets the
> granularity to 1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>
> ---
>  fs/ceph/super.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> As far as I could see there are no other side-effects of changing
> s_time_gran but I'm really not sure why it was initially set to 1000 in
> the first place so I may be missing something.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
> index d57fa60dcd43..35dd75bc9cd0 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
> @@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ static int ceph_set_super(struct super_block *s, void *data)
>  	s->s_d_op = &ceph_dentry_ops;
>  	s->s_export_op = &ceph_export_ops;
>  
> -	s->s_time_gran = 1000;  /* 1000 ns == 1 us */
> +	s->s_time_gran = 1;
>  
>  	ret = set_anon_super(s, NULL);  /* what is that second arg for? */
>  	if (ret != 0)


Looks like it was set that way since the client code was originally
merged. Was this an earlier limitation of ceph that is no longer
applicable?

In any case, I see no need at all to keep this at 1000, so:

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>