From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v3] Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:49:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20080603114921.GX28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <482D4665.4050401@gmail.com> <48401E7E.9090304@gmail.com> <20080603112221.GW28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080603113018.GA27955@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: Jamie Lokier , Miklos Szeredi , drepper@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:07PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > Is there anything else where the file descriptor's access mode allows > > doing things on Linux, but the standard requires a permissions check > > each time? > > Jamie, > > I can't think of examples offhand -- but I'm also not quite sure what > your question is about. Could you say a little more? "Is anything else equally stupid?", I suspect... AFAICS, behaviour in question is inherited from futimes(2) in one of the *BSD - nothing to do about that now (at least 10 years too late). It's rather inconsistent with a lot of things, starting with "why utimes(2) has weaker requirements with NULL argument", but we are far too late to fix that.