[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060809141100.GP29920@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:11:00 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>
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()
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:15:12AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> 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?
RTFPOSIX...
Short version:
* immutable files are immutable, including metadata
* append-only files may be touched (when you write to the end), which
means that you can touch them. Which is what utimes(file, NULL) does.
* you can not truncate append-only file, overwrite already written
data or set timestamps to arbitrary values.
That's where the difference between utimes(file, NULL) and utimes(file, p)
is - the former basically is a write-without-write ("touch foo") and the
latter directly assigns to timestamps. Permissions needed for these are
obviously different.
Please, read POSIX/SuS when modifying behaviour of syscalls. Really.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists