On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 20:30 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:39:34 -0400
> Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:27 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > > but close is... very limited in value. Open is a discrete event
> > > traditionally associated withh permission checks.
> > > Close... not so.  (And if you mmap memory, you can then close the file
> > > and still write to it via the mmap)
> > 
> > Thankfully my implementation will invalidate that close time check and
> > caching result.  It does the invalidating the same place we update mtime
> > and my understanding is that mmap has been updating mtime for quite a
> > while now. 
> 
> Then isn't the close time check superfluous, since you do the
> checks at change time already?

In the patches I posted, "checks" are done at open and close if the
result is not already in the cache.  Every write invalidates the cache
and thus the next open/close will do a "check."

So the longer a process keeps a file open the longer it is susceptible
to "unclean" data existing in that file.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/