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:0.023 / U:157.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site