lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] vfs: add a O_NOMTIME flag

> Sage> I think this is the fundamental question: who do we give the
> Sage> ammunition to, the user or app writer, or the sysadmin?
>
> Sage> One might argue that we gave the user a similar power with
> Sage> O_NOATIME (the power to break applications that assume atime is
> Sage> accurate). Here we give developers/users the power to not
> Sage> update mtime and suffer the consequences (like, obviously,
> Sage> breaking mtime-based backups). It should be pretty obvious to
> Sage> anyone using the flag what the consequences are.
>
> Not modifying atime doesn't really break anything except people who
> think they can tell when a file was last accessed. Which isn't
> critical (unless your in a paranoid security conscious place...) but
> MTIME is another beast entirely. Turning that off is going to break
> lots of hidden assumptions.
>
> Sage> Note that we can suffer similar lapses in mtime with fdatasync
> Sage> followed by a system crash. And as Andy points out it's
> Sage> semi-broken for writable mmap. The crash case is obviously a
> Sage> slightly different thing, but the idea that mtime can't always
> Sage> be trusted certainly isn't crazy talk.
>
> True, but after a crash... people expect and understand there might be
> corruption in a filesystem.

Umm. No; people do not expect anything newer than ext3 to get
corrupted, ever.

In fact, I did not know about fdatasync/crash. That's rather nasty
surprise.

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-14 14:21    [W:0.116 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site