Re: [PATCH] move IMMUTABLE|APPEND checks to notify_change()
From: Al Viro
Date: Wed Aug 09 2006 - 10:08:47 EST
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:15:12AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> 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?
* immutable files are immutable, including metadata
* append-only files may be touched (when you write to the end), which
means that you can touch them. Which is what utimes(file, NULL) does.
* you can not truncate append-only file, overwrite already written
data or set timestamps to arbitrary values.
That's where the difference between utimes(file, NULL) and utimes(file, p)
is - the former basically is a write-without-write ("touch foo") and the
latter directly assigns to timestamps. Permissions needed for these are
Please, read POSIX/SuS when modifying behaviour of syscalls. Really.
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/