From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 27 16:03:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392E016A46C; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:03:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.193]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B315E13C448; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:03:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from besplex.bde.org (c211-30-219-213.carlnfd3.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.219.213]) by mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0RG3NgJ031547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:03:24 +1100 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:51:47 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: linimon@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <200801261438.m0QEcNCI087322@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20080128024030.K928@besplex.bde.org> References: <200801261438.m0QEcNCI087322@freefall.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: standards/25777: [kernel] [patch] atime not updated on exec X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:03:28 -0000 On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 linimon@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Synopsis: [kernel] [patch] atime not updated on exec > It sounds as though from the audit-trail that this might be in > the 'standards' realm. This fixed from RELENG_mumble on for ffs only, and there is a special VOP_SETATTR() call for for fixing it in all fs's. It is unlikely to ever be fixed in nfs because atimes are broken in general in nfs and fixing that would have large overheads. nfs was pessimized in RELENG_mumble2 by turning the special VOP_SETATTR() call into a null RPC instead of ignoring it since it is unsupported. Other fs's might have a similar pessimization. Last time I looked, unionfs didn't do the right things to pass the special call down to the lowest layer. Bruce