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

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-04-30T00:21:22Z

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 http://vladz.devzero.fr/013_ptmx-timing.php).
> 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?

> 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.

> 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?

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

Patch to show this?

thanks,

greg k-h