On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> The rationale for being compatible with 4.4BSD on append-only but not on
> immutable is -- for immutable we can do the test by means of permission()
> fast but for append-only we would need an extra if() above permission so
> let's just be BSD-compatible. Alternatively, one could ignore BSD
> altogether and return EACCES in both. Or, one could ignore SuS altogether
> and return EPERM for both immutable and append-only. It is a matter of
> taste so... I chose something in the middle , perhaps non-intuitive but
> optimized for speed and the size of code.
Big, loud "yuck". The first rule of optimization: don't. I agree that
in the current code test for immutable is dead. However, the rationale
above is a BS. The path is nowhere near time-critical ones. Moreover,
it doesn't make the code simpler.
History: 4.4BSD treats immutable and append-only the same way it treats
removal from sticky-bit directories, etc. I.e. consistenly returns
-EPERM. Yes, on access(), open() for write, directory operations, yodda,
yodda.
So correct solution may very well be to change the return value of
permission(9). FWIW, MAY_TRUNCATE might be a good idea - notice that
knfsd already has something like that. It makes sense for directories,
BTW - having may_delete() drop the IS_APPEND() test and pass MAY_TRUNCATE
to permission() instead.
<looking at the truncate(2) manpage>
Oh, lovely - where the hell had the following come from?
% man truncate
...
EINVAL The pathname contains a character with the high-
order bit set.
...
Andries, would you mind removing that, erm, statement? I'm curious about
its genesis - AFAIK we had 8bit-clean namei for ages (quite possibly since
0.01).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
