linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v3]

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: <20080530193207.GB28074@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2008 13:32:07 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	mtk.manpages@...glemail.com, drepper@...hat.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v3]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:22:30PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> For 2) you can just use permission() instead of vfs_permission() which
> is exactly the same in this case (and consolidated into a common
> function later in the vfs-cleanups tree).

Miklos, don't delude people into thinking the vfs-cleanups tree is ever
going to get merged in its current state.  Al's NAKed the path_* stuff,
Christoph's NAKed it too.  Ignoring them and putting up a VFS tree of
your own is not going to help matters.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/