On Friday 26 January 2007 21:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm somewhat surprised that this wasn't done earlier. I wonder if there's
> some subtle reason why this won't work. How well tested is this?
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/utimes.html
lists a slight difference between utime and utimes in the handling
of EPERM/EACCESS:
> The utimes() function shall fail if:
> [EACCES] Search permission is denied by a component of the path prefix;
> or the times argument is a null pointer and the effective user ID of the
> process does not match the owner of the file and write access is denied.
> [EPERM] The times argument is not a null pointer and the calling process'
> effective user ID has write access to the file but does not match the
> owner of the file and the calling process does not have the appropriate
> privileges.
>
> The utime() function shall fail if:
> [EACCES] Search permission is denied by a component of the path prefix;
> or the times argument is a null pointer and the effective user ID of the
> process does not match the owner of the file, the process does not have
> write permission for the file, and the process does not have appropriate
> privileges.
> [EPERM] The times argument is not a null pointer and the calling process'
> effective user ID does not match the owner of the file and the calling
> process does not have the appropriate privileges.
I don't really understand how that should be implemented in different
ways, but it might be the reason that we have separate functions.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
