Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 May 2012 13:57:47 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] procfs: expose umask in stat and status | From | Pierre Carrier <> |
| |
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > Why not use "Umask:\t%#o\n" ? that way you don't get two zeros if the > umask is zero.
Because of ignorance and laziness. Just tried "%#o" with v3.4-rc5-182-g71eb557 and got equivalent results to "0%o", including 0->"00".
So it's agreeably better, even we just don't see it yet.
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > It would be good to tell us why we need this, of course.
Oops. I don't have a killer argument.
We happened to look for the information for a running service and couldn't think of a simple, non-invasive solution. It feels like it'd be useful to expose it.
I assumed status is a good fit (already has euid, egid and ngroups for example). AFAICT there wouldn't be any significant security or performance implications.
But I could very well be missing something.
Thanks,
-- Pierre Carrier Service Reliability Engineer Spotify AB
| |