WG15 Defect Report Ref: 9945-1-52
Topic: timestamps on read-only filesystems


This is an approved interpretation of 9945-1:1990.

.

Last update: 1997-05-20


                                                                9945-1-90 #52

        Classification: No Change.

 _____________________________________________________________________________


	Topic:			timestamps on read-only filesystems
	Relevant Sections:	2.2.2.69, 2.3.5


Defect Report:
-----------------------
    
    ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 Section 2.2.2.69 defines "read only file system":

	A file system that has implementation defined characteristics
	restricting modifications.

    ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 Section 2.3.5 "file times update" states:

	Updates are not done for files on read-only file systems.

    Is it permissible for an implementation to update the st_atime
    attribute held in-core but yet prevent the update of that attribute for
    the file on the read-only filesystem?

WG15 response for ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 (IEEE Std 1003.1-1990)
--------------------------------------------------

    No, such an implementation is not conforming.

Rationale for Interpretation:
-----------------------------

    The statement that a read-only filesystem has implementation-defined
    restrictions on modification does not prevent the standard itself from
    specifying restrictions.  Subclause 2.3.5 states that st_atime shall
    not be updated for a file on a read-only file system.   Subclause
    2.2.2.69 says that there are implementation-defined restrictions
    restricting modification, but these are in addition to any restrictions
    imposed by the standard.

    Note that read() marks the file for update, even on a read-only
    filesystem, but the update is never done.  This distinction is not
    particularly relevant to an application, since there is no way to
    find out that a time is "marked" but not "updated."

Editorial note for future revision of standard (not part of the interpretation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would improve readability if these two subclauses referenced
each other, but the fact that they don't doesn't change what is
required.


 _____________________________________________________________________________