linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386

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

Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:05:09 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386

On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 12:45:20PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > OK, but I don't recall having seeing a demand for lutimes().  Opinions
> > are sought?
>
> It's an interface which has been available on other platforms forever
> (lutimes, not lutimesat).  If it can be implemented correctly on the
> interesting file systems I'd say "go ahead", it can only be useful and
> have more benefits than the probably small cost of implementing it.
>
> If on the other hand important filesystems cannot support lutimes then
> I'd wait with introducing the syscall at least until the support is
> added.

What do you mean by "filesystems cannot support lutimes"? Filesystems
that don't have on-disk timestamps for symlinks?

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