From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:23:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] utime emulation Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:01:15 -0700, "Wichmann, Mats D" said: Mats> I'm finding that utime(filename, NULL) doesn't follow specs - Mats> this comes up in plodding through the LSB certification test Mats> suite. Mats> For example, if the process does not own the file but has Mats> write permission, the above referenced call should succeed but Mats> fails with EPERM. Mats> utime() is emulated on Itanium: in the kernel, fs/open.c Mats> doesn't have a sys_utime routine if __ia64__ or alpha; the Mats> emulation comes from glibc's sysdeps/unix/utime.c but appears Mats> to be bogus. The problem is that if the second argument to Mats> utime is NULL the emulation code does some work to build up a Mats> "struct timeval" array as expected by utimes(), and passes Mats> that off, instead of passing NULL... and so the proper checks Mats> in the NULL case don't get done by the kernel. Mats> I guess this is a query to see if anyone on this list knows Mats> anything about this code. Is this just a glibc problem, or Mats> should Itanium go back to providing the non-emulated utime Mats> routine like nearly all the other arch's do (and so this Mats> emulation code is not run). Please report this as a glibc bug. --david