Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Primarily to let a backup program restore the full state of the filesystem.

Is this wanted?  Or needed?  I would think there are good reasons why
this hasn't been done so far.  Intrusion detection is one reason I can
think of.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] utimensat implementation
  - From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
  - From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: MAINTAINERS file out of date?
Next by Date: Re: MAINTAINERS file out of date?
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] utimensat implementation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]