Re: [ 02/42] TTY: do not update atime/mtime on read/write

From: Simon Kirby
Date: Mon Apr 29 2013 - 20:36:46 EST

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 05:21:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 05:14:45PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:01:44PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > 3.8-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > I object. This breaks functionality I use every day (seeing who else is
> > working on stuff with "w").
> >
> > Furthermore, the patch does not actually fix the hole referenced (see
> > ptmx-keystroke-latency.c on
> > I can still reproduce the timing capture even with this patch applied
> > (in 3.9-rc8).
> How? There are no keystrokes being reported to other users, or did we
> miss something with this patch?

gcc -O ptmx-keystroke-latency ptmx-keystroke-latency.c

Log in to another tty, as another user. See keystroke timing. 3.9-rc8.

Seems like it was missed. Meanwhile, idle times in "w" do not update.

> > The grsec patch instead introdues another test within the inotify code
> > (is_sidechannel_device()-related bits) -- untested by me, but probably
> > more relevant.
> >
> > Even 37b7f3c76595e23257f61bd80b223de8658617ee, the "regression fix",
> > which Linus merged in for the 3.9 release, is still a regression for me.
> And I applied that one as well.

Right, so this restores updates but increases the granularity to 60
seconds. I'm complaining that this is still affects my occupational

> > 60 seconds means somebody is asleep in my environment, and so is still
> > the kind of thing that just pisses me off. I'd rather revert this whole
> > thing.
> Users taking a break for longer than a minute upset you? What are you
> really trying to keep track of here?

Really? In a team environment, a person idle for 30 seconds means they've
stopped to look at something else. Now we have to wait 2 minutes to know
if this has happened or not. Now it becomes faster to interrupt somebody
to ask them if maintenance can be done, etc.

> > I'd stand maybe 1 seconds as maximum granularity. You could do that with
> > less code and no test.
> Patch to show this?

I was thinking of just updating the seconds field of the timespec struct,
or leaving this particular part and setting sb->s_time_gran to 100000000,
though that would probably break other things. Since I've never looked at
this stuff before, I'm not sure I should make a patch, but I can...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at