linux-kernel - Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?

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: <20070715205313.GE21668@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:53:13 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:46:27PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> recently, the family of *at() syscalls and functions (openat, fstatat, 
> etc.) have been added to Linux and Glibc, respectively.
> In short: I am missing xattr at functions :)

No.  They are not fscking forks.  They are almost as revolting, but
not quite on the same level.

> BTW, why is fstatat called fstatat and not statat? (Same goes for 
> futimesat.) It does not take a file descriptor for the file argument. 
> Otherwise we'd also need fopenat/funlinkat, etc. Any reasons?

Ulrich having an odd taste?
-
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/