lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fcntl.h: define AT_EACCESS
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:08:00 +0200
maximilian attems <max@stro.at> wrote:

> noticed on a klibc build of dash that someone had left out that def:
> usr/dash/bltin/test.c:490: error: ___AT_EACCESS___ undeclared (first use in thiction)
>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <max@stro.at>
> ---
> include/linux/fcntl.h | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fcntl.h b/include/linux/fcntl.h
> index 8603740..8bb001d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fcntl.h
> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@
> #define AT_REMOVEDIR 0x200 /* Remove directory instead of
> unlinking file. */
> #define AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW 0x400 /* Follow symbolic links. */
> +#define AT_EACCESS 0x200 /* Test access permitted for
> + effective IDs, not real IDs. */
>

I'm all confused.

The affects sys_faccesat(), yes? But sys_faccesat() never gets passed
a `flags' argument so how does the behaviour which the FACCESSAT(2)
manpage describes get implemented?

This patch doesn't actually change kernel behaviour, so how can setting
AT_EACCESS change any syscall's actions?

It's a bit of a worry that the proposed value for AT_EACCESS duplicates
AT_REMOVEDIR. I guess that, despite apeparances, they're different
namespaces. Any thoughts on the implications of this?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-19 23:51    [W:0.060 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site