linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] lutimesat: simplify utime(2)

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:	Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:35:42 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] lutimesat: simplify utime(2)

On Friday 26 January 2007 21:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm somewhat surprised that this wasn't done earlier.  I wonder if there's
> some subtle reason why this won't work.   How well tested is this?

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/utimes.html
lists a slight difference between utime and utimes in the handling
of EPERM/EACCESS:

> The utimes() function shall fail if:
> [EACCES] Search permission is denied by a component of the path prefix;
>  or the times argument is a null pointer and the effective user ID of the
>  process does not match the owner of the file and write access is denied.
> [EPERM] The times argument is not a null pointer and the calling process'
>  effective user ID has write access to the file but does not match the
>  owner of the file and the calling process does not have the appropriate
>  privileges.
>
> The utime() function shall fail if:
> [EACCES]  Search permission is denied by a component of the path prefix;
>  or the times argument is a null pointer and the effective user ID of the
>  process does not match the owner of the file, the process does not have
>  write permission for the file, and the process does not have appropriate
>  privileges.
> [EPERM] The times argument is not a null pointer and the calling process'
>  effective user ID does not match the owner of the file and the calling
>  process does not have the appropriate privileges.

I don't really understand how that should be implemented in different
ways, but it might be the reason that we have separate functions.

	Arnd <><
-
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/