linux-kernel - Re: 回复: [PATCH v2 2/3] hfs: correct superblock flags

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f41ff81af6530ba26ac36e99b48b2f5c2bf0c1b2.camel@ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 17:04:35 +0000
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
To: "frank.li@...o.com" <frank.li@...o.com>,
        "glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de"
	<glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        "slava@...eyko.com" <slava@...eyko.com>
CC: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re:  回复: [PATCH v2 2/3] hfs: correct superblock flags

On Wed, 2025-05-28 at 16:56 +0000, 李扬韬 wrote:
> Hi Slava,
> 
> > I am slightly confused by comment. Does it mean that the fix introduces more errors? It looks like we need to have more clear explanation of the fix here.
> 
> How about below commit msg.
> 
> We don't support atime updates of any kind,
> because hfs actually does not have atime.
> 
>    dirCrDat:      LongInt;    {date and time of creation}
>    dirMdDat:      LongInt;    {date and time of last modification}
>    dirBkDat:      LongInt;    {date and time of last backup}
> 
>    filCrDat:      LongInt;    {date and time of creation}
>    filMdDat:      LongInt;    {date and time of last modification}
>    filBkDat:      LongInt;    {date and time of last backup}
> 
> W/O patch(xfstest generic/003):
> 
>  +ERROR: access time has changed for file1 after remount
>  +ERROR: access time has changed after modifying file1
>  +ERROR: change time has not been updated after changing file1
>  +ERROR: access time has changed for file in read-only filesystem
> 
> W/ patch(xfstest generic/003):
> 
>  +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file1 first time

The +ERROR sounds for me that generic/003 ends with error or failed. So, what
are we trying to say here?

The comment looks like that we had 4 errors before the fix and we have 6 errors
after the fix. It sounds strange. :)

Thanks,
Slava. 

>  +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file2
>  +ERROR: access time has changed after modifying file1
>  +ERROR: change time has not been updated after changing file1
>  +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file3 second time
>  +ERROR: access time has not been updated after accessing file3 third time
> 
> With this patch, we do not accept changes to atime under any circumstances.