Re: [PATCH -v5 2/2] Updating ctime and mtime at syncing

[Anton Salikhmetov]

2008/1/17, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 2008/1/17, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > > 4. Recording the time was the file data changed
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, I noticed yet another issue with the previous version of my patch.
> > > > > Specifically, the time stamps were set to the current time of the moment
> > > > > when syncing but not the write reference was being done. This led to the
> > > > > following adverse effect on my development system:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) a text file A was updated by process B;
> > > > > 2) process B exits without calling any of the *sync() functions;
> > > > > 3) vi editor opens the file A;
> > > > > 4) file data synced, file times updated;
> > > > > 5) vi is confused by "thinking" that the file was changed after 3).
> > >
> > > Updating the time in remove_vma() would fix this, no?
> >
> > We need to save modification time. Otherwise, updating time stamps
> > will be confusing the vi editor.
>
> remove_vma() will be called when process B exits, so if the times are
> updated there, and the flag is cleared, the times won't be updated
> later.
>
> > >
> > > > > All these changes to inode.c are unnecessary, I think.
> > > >
> > > > The first part is necessary to account for "remembering" the modification time.
> > > >
> > > > The second part is for handling block device files. I cannot see any other
> > > > sane way to update file times for them.
> > >
> > > Use file_update_time(), which will do the right thing.  It will in
> > > fact do the same thing as write(2) on the device, which is really what
> > > we want.
> > >
> > > Block devices being mapped for write through different device
> > > nodes..., well, I don't think we really need to handle such weird
> > > corner cases 100% acurately.
> >
> > The file_update_time() cannot be used for implementing
> > the "auto-update" feature, because the sync() system call
> > doesn't "know" about the file which was memory-mapped.
>
> I'm not sure this auto-updating is really needed (POSIX doesn't
> mandate it).

Peter Shtaubach, author of the first solution for this bug,
and Jacob Ostergaard, the reporter of this bug, insist the "auto-update"
feature to be implemented.

>
> At least split it out into a separate patch, so it can be considered
> separately on it's own merit.
>
> I think doing the same with the page-table reprotecting in MS_ASYNC is
> also a good idea.  That will leave us with
>
>  1) a base patch: update time just from fsync() and remove_vma()
>  2) update time on sync(2) as well
>  3) update time on MS_ASYNC as well
>
> I'd happily ack the first one, which would solve the most serious
> issues, but have some reservations about the other two.
>
> Miklos
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/