Thread (29 messages) flat view 29 messages, 5 authors, 2018-01-26

[PATCH v2 01/15] Documentation: add newcx initramfs format description

From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: 2018-01-26 09:04:51
Also in: lkml

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Rob Landley [off-list ref] wrote:
The problem with 1 second timestamps was you honestly could confuse
"make" about which file was newer once an exec() could complete in the
same second having done real work. That was the motivating issue causing
the change, going to nanoseconds was just the big hammer of "this is
large enough it won't matter again in our lifetimes". But nanosecond
time stamps are recording more jitter than useful information, and that
seems unlikely to change this century?
Sure, the only thing we really need the nanosecond timestamp for is
to keep them identical. E.g. if you use cpio to make an exact copy
of a file system, using microseconds timestamps will round all mtime
values. If you then use 'rsync' to compare/update the two copies
without passing a --modify-window= or --size-only, it will have
to read all files in rather then skipping those with identical size and
mtime.

Side note: the default behavior for file systems is actually to only use
the coarse timestamps of the last timer tick, so you actually do get
identical timestamps in practice, plus six digits of nonsense:

(on tmpfs)
 $ for i in {000..999} ; do > $i ; done; stat --format="%y" *  | uniq -c
     86 2018-01-26 10:01:48.811135084 +0100
    469 2018-01-26 10:01:48.815135143 +0100
    445 2018-01-26 10:01:48.819135201 +0100

         Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help