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

Message-ID: <20140205200801.GA31318@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 21:08:01 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Tuxera test suite failure for setfacl

  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 <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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