Re:What If OpenDocument Used SQLite?
by fluidcruft on Monday September 18, 2023 @11:19AM
(#37557382)
I am under the impression that modifying a file's content updates the modification time. Is this incorrect? Modifying a file without updating the mtime or allowing mtimes to be edited in userspace sounds like a security nightmare.
Re:What If OpenDocument Used SQLite?
by mixmastamyk on Monday September 18, 2023 @01:48PM
(#37559428)
Yes it does. mtimes can definitely be edited, if you have permission, but it is rare. I have a photo script that pulls the taken time from Exif and writes it to the file mtime.
> mtimes can definitely be edited, if you have permission
It just requires you to be the owner of the file (https://serverfault.com/a/337810), no special permissions. On the other hand, editing the ctime is not easy -- it requires tricks (e.g. change the computer clock, which typically requires root privileges).
On Linux, the mtime ("modification time") is indeed automatically updated when the content is changed, but it can also be set arbitrarily from userspace (e.g. using `touch`) without special permissions. This is very useful, e.g. when you mirror a directory you'll typically want to preserve the mtimes, to help identify changes later.
Linux also has a ctime ("status change time"), which is automatically updated when the content or metadata (inode) are changed. It is not possible to change from userspace (you have to use tricks such as changing the computer clock or directly modifying the disk). This gives you the security benefits, but it is not commonly used e.g. in backup tools, precisely because they want to be able to set "fake" timestamps.
If the size, mtime, and inode number stay the same (i.e. it writes into the file directly instead of replacing it), then most backup software will skip it. AFAIK to do otherwise you either need to read the whole file every time, or be live monitoring audit events to see what files have been opened for write, or be the filesystem (e.g. ZFS snapshots, which can be maximally efficient since it knows exactly which blocks it's modified)
Of course this has its own downsides. While those writes may have been "unimportant", the fact is that your backups are now flawed. And if the application has had the foresight to distinguish unimportant writes, and preserve the mtime, I'd rather they just not make those writes in the first place