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:	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:45:20 -0800
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lutimesat: actual syscall and wire-up on i386

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.  It much easier to cope with unavailable syscalls then it is with
partially working ones.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (252 bytes)