Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:16:42 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: open(2) and O_NOATIME Message-ID: <490A6A8A.7080504@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <20081030154711.GA8416@icarus.home.lan> References: <20081030154711.GA8416@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > I've recently been reading about Linux's O_NOATIME flag to open(2), and > I'm curious why we haven't implemented this. There seem to be a lot of > good reasons to implement such a thing. > > Chances are it's due to lack of time/interest, which is expected, but I > was wondering if there were other reasons. > > I realise mount's noatime trumps this, but there are lots of scenarios > where atime is desired as a default, but disabled in specific cases. Em... Allowing administrators to disable NOATIME would be a good thing, but wouldn't allowing arbitrary program to decide whether atime should be changed, be a serious security disaster? Disclaimer: I'm not a big atime fan myself, actually I disable atime on a lot of my servers for performance reasons :) Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkkKaooACgkQi+vbBBjt66CImQCgj51GGHXFaGhsFk4fAAWhmfV5 +s4An2Hn2TCVhqXEpzEL3xNwxy6YE84M =n7f/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?490A6A8A.7080504>