Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757433AbYFCL6U (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:58:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752626AbYFCL6J (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:58:09 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:53709 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751869AbYFCL6I (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:58:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:58:01 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: Jamie Lokier , Miklos Szeredi , drepper@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v3] Message-ID: <20080603115801.GY28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <482D4665.4050401@gmail.com> <48401E7E.9090304@gmail.com> <20080603112221.GW28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080603113018.GA27955@shareable.org> <20080603114921.GX28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080603114921.GX28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1280 Lines: 27 On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:21PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:07PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > Is there anything else where the file descriptor's access mode allows > > > doing things on Linux, but the standard requires a permissions check > > > each time? > > > > Jamie, > > > > I can't think of examples offhand -- but I'm also not quite sure what > > your question is about. Could you say a little more? > > "Is anything else equally stupid?", I suspect... AFAICS, behaviour in > question is inherited from futimes(2) in one of the *BSD - nothing to > do about that now (at least 10 years too late). It's rather inconsistent > with a lot of things, starting with "why utimes(2) has weaker requirements > with NULL argument", but we are far too late to fix that. PS: as far as I can reconstruct what had happened there, they've got these checks buried directly in ufs_setattr() and its ilk, which worked for utimes(2), but had bitten them when they tried to do descriptor-based analog... -- 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/