Re: [Linux-ia64] utime emulation

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2002-08-07 06:23:38
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:01:15 -0700, "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann@intel.com> said:

  Mats> I'm finding that utime(filename, NULL) doesn't follow specs -
  Mats> this comes up in plodding through the LSB certification test
  Mats> suite.

  Mats> For example, if the process does not own the file but has
  Mats> write permission, the above referenced call should succeed but
  Mats> fails with EPERM.

  Mats> utime() is emulated on Itanium: in the kernel, fs/open.c
  Mats> doesn't have a sys_utime routine if __ia64__ or alpha; the
  Mats> emulation comes from glibc's sysdeps/unix/utime.c but appears
  Mats> to be bogus.  The problem is that if the second argument to
  Mats> utime is NULL the emulation code does some work to build up a
  Mats> "struct timeval" array as expected by utimes(), and passes
  Mats> that off, instead of passing NULL... and so the proper checks
  Mats> in the NULL case don't get done by the kernel.

  Mats> I guess this is a query to see if anyone on this list knows
  Mats> anything about this code.  Is this just a glibc problem, or
  Mats> should Itanium go back to providing the non-emulated utime
  Mats> routine like nearly all the other arch's do (and so this
  Mats> emulation code is not run).

Please report this as a glibc bug.

	--david
Received on Tue Aug 06 13:25:19 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:09 EST