linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] move IMMUTABLE|APPEND checks to notify

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200608091115.12949.dim@openvz.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:15:12 +0400
From:	Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move IMMUTABLE|APPEND checks to notify_change()

Do you meant utimes(file, NULL)?
But is it correct behaviour? Why then do you get -EPERM on utimes(file, smth) 
if the file is append-only? And why do you get -EACCESS on utimes(file, 
NULL), if this file is immutable?

Could you explain, why is it done so?

On Wednesday 09 August 2006 00:38, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:44:07PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > [PATCH] move IMMUTABLE|APPEND checks to notify_change()
> >
> > This patch moves lots of IMMUTABLE and APPEND flag checks
> > scattered all around to more logical place in notify_change().
>
> NAK.  For example, you are allowed to do unames(file, NULL) on
> any file you own or can write to, whether it's append-only or
> not.  With your change that gets -EPERM.

-- 
Thanks,
Dmitry.
-
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/