[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] procfs: expose umask in stat and status
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <> 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 <> 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.


Pierre Carrier
Service Reliability Engineer
Spotify AB

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-05 14:21    [W:0.081 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site