> "Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >In favor of a O_NOATIME flag, it looks like Linux > has this, defined as > > > > O_NOATIME > > > > (Since Linux 2.6.8) Do not update the file last > access time (st_atime in > > > > the inode) when the file is read(2). This flag > is intended for use by > > > > indexing or backup programs, where its use can > significantly reduce the > > > > amount of disk activity. This flag may not be > effective on all filesystems. > > > > One example is NFS, where the server maintains > the access time. > > > > but if they have any fine-grained privilege keeping > it from being abused, I > > didn't see that (and think that perhaps we should, > with the flag silently ignored > > in the absence of that privilege, which shouldn't > _break_ anything, just wouldn't > > hand it out willy-nilly). > > Linux allows it to the file owner and in case of: > capable(CAP_FOWNER) > which looks similar to our PRIV_FILE_OWNER > > The question is whether this is what we like ;-)
Right, but but I was thinking that an extra priv should be required, since this would override POSIX and/or mount-time policy, obfuscate forensics, etc. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
