lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/18] xstat: Add a pair of system calls to make extended file stats available [ver #6]
From
Date
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 19:03 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2010-07-22 18:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:47:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>> Tell me why we shouldn't just do this right?
> >>
> >> No, ctime isn't the same as Windows "create time".
> >
> >Umm. What kind of reading problems do you guys have?
> >
> >I know effin well that ctime isn't the same as Windows create time.
> >THAT WAS MY POINT.
> >
> >But the fact is, th Unix ctime semantics are insane and largely
> >useless. There's a damn good reason almost nobody uses ctime under
> >unix.
>
> I beg to differ. ctime is not completely useless. It reflects changes on
> the inode for when you don't you change the content. It's like an mtime
> for the metadata. It comes useful when you go around in your filesystem
> trying to figure out who of your co-admins screwed up the permissions on
> /etc/passwd... and if the mtime is the same as that of the last backup,
> I can at least have a reasonable assurance that it was /only/ the
> metadata that was tampered with. (SHA1 check, yeah yeah, costly on large
> files.)

Errr... Only if you eliminate utimes() from your syscall table.
Otherwise it is trivial to reset the mtime after changing the file
contents.

Cheers
Trond



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-22 19:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans