From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 26 03:28:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA03801 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from trifork.gu.net (trifork.gu.net [194.93.190.194]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA03795 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:28:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.gu.kiev.ua [127.0.0.1]) by trifork.gu.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA06732; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:28:28 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:28:28 +0200 (EET) From: Andrew Stesin Reply-To: stesin@gu.net To: Michael Smith cc: Shawn Carey , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone else seen this? In-Reply-To: <199703260321.NAA24228@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Message-ID: X-NCC-RegID: ua.gu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > > This looks very much like a problem that has been reported many times > before, where one or more pages from a process' text are written back > to the file. The pages aren't actually changed, but the file's timestamp > is obviously updated. Just curious, what will happen in case the program file affected by this bug will occasionally reside on a R/O-mounted FS? If the kernel will eat this difference quietly, without any strange side effects, crashes, messages or so -- I'd probably wonder... Best regards, Andrew Stesin nic-hdl: ST73-RIPE