Re: [PATCH] move IMMUTABLE|APPEND checks to notify_change()
From: Dmitry Mishin
Date: Wed Aug 09 2006 - 03:13:01 EST
Do you meant utimes(file, NULL)?
But is it correct behaviour? Why then do you get -EPERM on utimes(file, smth)
if the file is append-only? And why do you get -EACCESS on utimes(file,
NULL), if this file is immutable?
Could you explain, why is it done so?
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 00:38, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:44:07PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > [PATCH] move IMMUTABLE|APPEND checks to notify_change()
> > This patch moves lots of IMMUTABLE and APPEND flag checks
> > scattered all around to more logical place in notify_change().
> NAK. For example, you are allowed to do unames(file, NULL) on
> any file you own or can write to, whether it's append-only or
> not. With your change that gets -EPERM.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/