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• Prev by Date: Re: MAINTAINERS file out of date?
• Next by Date: Re: MAINTAINERS file out of date?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]