Hello,
With commit c6ac12a6159c802ae8b757dd13563564e64333df we are modifying
the ctime of the file when changing file's permission by setfacl. The
commit says that is correct as per spec. But we do have a test in tuxera
http://tuxera.com/sw/qa/pjd-fstest-20090130-RC.tgz test/xacl/00.t 45
which expect the ctime to be not changed across setfacl.
I haven't looked at the spec myself. Can you double check and make sure
it is ok to change the ctime across setfacl ?
-aneesh
Hello,
On Wed 05-02-14 11:45:39, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> With commit c6ac12a6159c802ae8b757dd13563564e64333df we are modifying
> the ctime of the file when changing file's permission by setfacl. The
> commit says that is correct as per spec. But we do have a test in tuxera
> http://tuxera.com/sw/qa/pjd-fstest-20090130-RC.tgz test/xacl/00.t 45
> which expect the ctime to be not changed across setfacl.
>
> I haven't looked at the spec myself. Can you double check and make sure
> it is ok to change the ctime across setfacl ?
Well, it would be really strange if changing permissions via chmod(1)
changed ctime but via setfacl(1) did not, don't you think?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
Jan Kara <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed 05-02-14 11:45:39, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> With commit c6ac12a6159c802ae8b757dd13563564e64333df we are modifying
>> the ctime of the file when changing file's permission by setfacl. The
>> commit says that is correct as per spec. But we do have a test in tuxera
>> http://tuxera.com/sw/qa/pjd-fstest-20090130-RC.tgz test/xacl/00.t 45
>> which expect the ctime to be not changed across setfacl.
>>
>> I haven't looked at the spec myself. Can you double check and make sure
>> it is ok to change the ctime across setfacl ?
> Well, it would be really strange if changing permissions via chmod(1)
> changed ctime but via setfacl(1) did not, don't you think?
>
That make sense. I guess we should consider this a test case error.
-aneesh