[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
From: |
Ondrej Valousek |
Subject: |
bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod() |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Jan 2023 06:53:04 +0000 |
Well, true, I do not know for sure what will happen on different platforms, yes
- I can't test.
On Linux both work the same way.
Either case, the purpose of qset_acl() is to set ACLs the way so that it
corresponds with the mode argument right?
That's what I would expect how it's supposed to work.
If yes, then isn't it better to handle this task to the filesystem driver in
kernel and just call chmod?
Zasláno z Outlooku pro Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Pádraig Brady <pixelbeat@gmail.com> on behalf of Pádraig Brady
<P@draigBrady.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 10:04:19 PM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valousek.xm@renesas.com>; 60620@debbugs.gnu.org
<60620@debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
On 06/01/2023 15:23, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> This patch replaces set_acl() funclion call with chmod_or_fchmod()
> Both functions works (AFAIK) the same way (at least in Linux) so should be
> possible.
> Using chmod_or_fchmod would also help us to reduce dependency on libacl
> (see the forthcoming patch to qcopy-acl.c from Gnulib).
The "at least in Linux" qualification worries me.
Having a very quick look at the qset_acl() code suggests
it clears ACLs on some platforms at least,
which chmod_or_fchmod() does not.
Am I reading that wrong?
thanks,
Pádraig
bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod(), Pádraig Brady, 2023/01/08