linux-ext4 - Re: Tuxera test suite failure for setfacl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:19:54 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Tuxera test suite failure for setfacl

Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html