lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: permission() bug?
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 01:14:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > the fix for permission() that makes it compliant with POSIX.1-2001
>
> Question is: should we fix it? I'm not aware of any bug reports against
> this behaviour, and there is the possibility that changing it now will
> break some applications.

Quite apart from this particular case, the general answer to such questions
should be Yes.

It must not be the case that Linux is roughly speaking POSIX-conforming
but deviates in a thousand obscure ways.

When a deviation is noticed, changing to be POSIX-conforming should
be the default action. Of course, some POSIX requirements are rather
unfortunate, and in individual cases there can be a good reason
not to change. Such individual cases should be discussed and well documented.

In a case like this, where it is clear that Linux is buggy, the bug
should just be fixed. Of course it is your call to choose between
fixing a bug and keeping a stable interface. If you choose the latter
this must be fixed in 2.7.

(By the way - 2.0.34 and 2.2.19 do not have this bug, 2.4.18 has.)


Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.695 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site