linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

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: <46314A08.9000209@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:55:36 -0700
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'm a bit leery of abusing the timespec value like this, though.  A
> flags field seem like it would be cleaner.

It's ugly.  Then you have the parameter, which might have nice valid
values, and they get ignored.  I thought about it when this was
discussed in the working group and thought it's a toss up.


> Something else... if we're dickering with these interfaces, shouldn't we
> allow setting atime as well?

Why?  To allow somebody to hide her/his tracks?

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


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