Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758927Ab3D3AVW (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:21:22 -0400 Received: from mail-da0-f43.google.com ([209.85.210.43]:60016 "EHLO mail-da0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758347Ab3D3AVU (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:21:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:21:17 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Simon Kirby Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [ 02/42] TTY: do not update atime/mtime on read/write Message-ID: <20130430002117.GA4202@kroah.com> References: <20130429184752.435249613@linuxfoundation.org> <20130429184752.700428715@linuxfoundation.org> <20130430001445.GA17260@hostway.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130430001445.GA17260@hostway.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1662 Lines: 45 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/