On Feb 26, 2007, at 13:46:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Alan wrote:
I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name ==
NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps,
admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be
exptected to catch the error before
Alan wrote:
I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL)
error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly
buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch
the error before performing the shared system call?
At that point woul
> I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL)
> error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly
> buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch
> the error before performing the shared system call?
At that point would it n
Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Alan,
On 2/26/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important
just go dead ?
It's not dead. You can find the latest patches here:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/penberg/linux/revoke/patches/
and user-space tests
Hi Alan,
On 2/26/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important
just go dead ?
It's not dead. You can find the latest patches here:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/penberg/linux/revoke/patches/
and user-space tests here:
http://www.cs.
Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important
just go dead ?
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ
On Wed 07-02-07 12:50:34, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> Hi Honza,
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of
> > revoked_inode.c?
>
> I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as
> bad_inode.c in mainline
Hi Honza,
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
> Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of
> revoked_inode.c?
I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as
bad_inode.c in mainline...
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this li
Hello,
> From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file
> descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful
> revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or
> ENXIO error code for regular and device f
Quoting Pekka J Enberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file
> descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful
> revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or
> ENXIO e
From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file
descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful
revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or
ENXIO error code for regular and device files,
respectively. At
11 matches
Mail list logo