On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 22:48 +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > The read-only check in inode_update_time() (or file_update_time() as it is
> > now in -mm) is unnecessary as the VFS better have done all the read-only
> > checks and aborted much earlier in the file write code paths where
> > inode/file_update_time() is only called from.
>
> I notice inode_update_time is called from pipe_writev. I don't know how
> likely it would be in practice, but wouldn't it be possible to write to
> a pipe on a read-only partition? In that case the read-only check still
> makes sense.
It would still make sense but only if you can write to a pipe on a
read-only partition which I have always assumed is not possible.
However, now that you queried this, I went and tried it and yes, you can
write to a named pipe after remounting read-only, so you are right, the
check does make sense in this case. One learns something new every day.
(-:
Andrew, please do not apply my patch...
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
