From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel Subject: Re: [RFC] The reflink(2) system call v4. Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:43:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20090514184351.GA911@logfs.org> References: <1241331303-23753-1-git-send-email-joel.becker@oracle.com> <20090507221535.GA31624@mail.oracle.com> <4A039FF8.7090807@hp.com> <20090508031018.GB8611@mail.oracle.com> <20090511204011.GB30293@mail.oracle.com> <20090512113152.GE6585@logfs.org> <4A0975B1.90703@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Joel Becker , jmorris@namei.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: jim owens Return-path: Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:35662 "EHLO longford.logfs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752754AbZENSoU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 14:44:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0975B1.90703@hp.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [ Delayed response - mailserver was dead. ] On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:12:17 -0400, jim owens wrote: >=20 > >Because if it is, I would call that behaviour rather confusing. A > >system call that behaves differently depending on who calls it - or > >on whether the binary is installed suid root - is something I would = like > >to avoid. >=20 > Avoiding that just gives us other confusing operations unless > you have a really good alternative. >=20 > This design is very elegant, I wish I had thought of it :) >=20 > It passes the test that 99% of the time for any user (including > root), "it just works the way I want it to". In my experience, > root and setuid programs really don't want to take ownership, > they want to replicate it. >=20 > The behavior matches "cp -p" or "tar -x" and yes those are not > system calls but so what. What matters is the documentation is > clear about what happens and the most useful result occurs. If what you want is copyfile(2), this is a poor design because it usually does what you want and sometimes doesn't. If what you want is reflink(2), this may be acceptable. Not sure. I personally would prefer to get -EPERM or something instead of altered behaviour. So you can count me in with the people that propose two seperate system calls. J=C3=B6rn --=20 They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- unknown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html