From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
guaneryu@gmail.com, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
ltp@lists.linux.it, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: utimensat EACCES vs. EPERM in 4.8+
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:50:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <432649da-a5d6-e448-e72e-76b68db16bb9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgNAkjTkBMY0wrj3wsH39YF=bHp=8mbYrXkSPzn0X4ezfso1w@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/16/2017 07:04 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [CC += linux-api + Dave Chinner]
> Summary of the above list: there's a nontrivial risk that something in
> userspace got broken. (And just because we didn't hear about it yet
> doesn't mean it didn't happen; sometimes these reports only arrive
> many months or even years later.)
>
> So, (1) I'm struggling to see the rationale for this change (I don't
> think "consistency" is enough) and (2) if "consistency" is the
> argument then (because the set of system calls in [1] are more
> frequently used than those in [2]), there's a reasonable argument that
> the change should have gone the other way: changing all IS_IMMUTABLE
> cases to fail with EACCES.
>
> Summary: I think there's an argument for reverting the kernel patch.
Completely agree.
Even if you go ahead with these changes, they really should go through
some kind of distro verification [1]. If I even contemplated such a change
in glibc I'd run it through 4-6 months of Fedora Rawhide builds just to
see what breaks before putting it out in a real release (and we do this
frequently for thread-related changes).
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
[1] "Usage of Fedora Rawhide" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Glibc
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-17 4:50 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 [this message]
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
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=432649da-a5d6-e448-e72e-76b68db16bb9@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=guaneryu@gmail.com \
--cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--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).