[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:0.021 / U:4.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site