From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: euidaccess() as syscall Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:35:13 -0600 Message-ID: <20080502173513.GK14976@parisc-linux.org> References: <8499950a0805020959g5114c9c9wa3803a9d1eab3147@mail.gmail.com> <20080502170603.GJ14976@parisc-linux.org> <8499950a0805021013g76261641r847ab18e648693a1@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Verych Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:54928 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765295AbYEBRfP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8499950a0805021013g76261641r847ab18e648693a1@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 06:13:00PM +0100, Oleg Verych wrote: > open() will change timestamp. `bash` and `dash` have very broken > workarounds of access() in `test` due to euid requirements. I.e. > read-only fs for root or various > selinux-like restrictions are not shown unless open() is used. > > So, it's better just to use stat64(), right? I don't think stat64 will tell you about selinux or rofs restrictions. But if the shell is interpreting code, I would bet that a couple of euid changes aren't going to make even a blip in the overall performance profile. If I'm wrong, please show me! -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."