From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk,
guaneryu@gmail.com, mszeredi@redhat.com,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
ltp@lists.linux.it, mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Subject: Re: utimensat EACCES vs. EPERM in 4.8+
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:35:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170117193557.GA17332@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170117044104.ktrtizpzhghqludn@thunk.org>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:41:05PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:46:45PM +0100, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > 4.9 kernel and simple touch on immutable file gives me:
> > utimensat(AT_FDCWD, "afile", NULL, 0) = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)
> >
> > while an older kernel it gives me:
> > utimensat(AT_FDCWD, "afile", NULL, 0) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied)
> >
> > Do we need to update man page or fix kernel back to return EACCES?
>
> Quoting from: http://blog.unclesniper.org/archives/2-Linux-programmers,-learn-the-difference-between-EACCES-and-EPERM-already!.html
> It appears that many programmers are unaware that there is a
> fundamental difference between the error codes EACCES (aka
> "Permission denied") and EPERM (aka "Operation not permitted"). In
> particular, a lot of code returns EPERM when they really mean
> EACCES:
>
> mist% killall sshd
> sshd(2244): Operation not permitted
That's posix, not just linux.
> To clear this up: "Permission denied" means just that -- the
> process has insufficient privileges to perform the requested
> operation. Simply put, this means that "trying the same thing as
> root will work".
Where did this blog entry come from? I've never seen the ACCES/PERM
distinction made that way anywhere else. Posix says:
[EACCES]
Permission denied. An attempt was made to access a file in a
way forbidden by its file access permissions.
[EPERM]
Operation not permitted. An attempt was made to perform an
operation limited to processes with appropriate privileges
or to the owner of a file or other resource.
So EPERM is exactly for attempts to do things that are reserved for root
(or process with appropriate capabilities or whatever).
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-17 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-16 15:46 utimensat EACCES vs. EPERM in 4.8+ Jan Stancek
2017-01-16 15:53 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-17 0:04 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-01-17 4:50 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-01-17 7:51 ` Jan Stancek
2017-01-17 7:57 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-01-17 9:39 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-01-17 15:43 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-01-18 8:23 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-01-31 12:09 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-01-17 4:41 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-01-17 19:35 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2017-01-17 21:04 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-01-18 8:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170117193557.GA17332@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=guaneryu@gmail.com \
--cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).