Matthew Wilcox @ Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:06 PM: > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:59:36PM +0100, Oleg Verych wrote: > > Hallo. > > > > Why there's no euidaccess() syscall (most obvious use is in `test` or > > `[` utility)? > > > > Instead euiaccess() in glibc and access() in kernel are doing unnecessary uid > > shuffling. > > Are there any programs which care? Do you have a benchmark that might > show an improvement if we added an euidaccess() syscall? > > My impression was that most programs ignore the access() family of > syscalls and just try to do the open and cope with the failure. They > have to anyway, since the file could have changed permission between the > call to access() and the call to open(). open() will change timestamp. `bash` and `dash` have very broken workarounds of access() in `test` due to euid requirements. I.e. read-only fs for root or various selinux-like restrictions are not shown unless open() is used. So, it's better just to use stat64(), right? ____ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
