Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758808AbYJIQEl (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:04:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757386AbYJIQE0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:04:26 -0400 Received: from fxip-0047f.externet.hu ([88.209.222.127]:42010 "EHLO pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752643AbYJIQE0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:04:26 -0400 To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: (message from Linus Torvalds on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: splice vs O_APPEND References: Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:04:10 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 955 Lines: 23 On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I do wonder if we shouldn't just do this in rw_verify_area(). The whole > reason for that function is that we used to have all those flock checks > etc spread out all over, and some path would inevitably just miss one > check or another. It's kind of stupid to expect low-level filesystems to > do the IS_APPEND/IS_IMMUTABLE checks. Do we expect them? I thought we don't care if it's marked immutable or append-only after the file has been opened, same as with normal permissions. > Comments? Your patch still ignores O_APPEND, is that what we want? It sounds sort of strange. pwrite() for example honors O_APPEND and ignores the position, AFAICS. Miklos -- 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/