Re: [4/5] Add option for hardlinkable cache of extracted blobs

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: Apr 17, 2005, 20:18 UTC
Message-ID: <20050417201856.GJ1461@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504171600310.30848-100000@iabervon.org>

Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 10:03:46PM CEST, I got a letter where Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> told me that...

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 
> > Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:25:17PM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> told me that...
> > > Petr wrote:
> > > > BTW, I'd just use access(F_OK) instead of stat() it I don't care about
> > > 
> > > I recommend _only_ using it when you require exactly the above real vs.
> > > effective id behaviour.
> > 
> > Does this distinction have any effect when doing F_OK?
> 
> Actually, the documentation I've got says:
> 
> "F_OK requests checking whether merely testing for the existence of the
>  file would be allowed (this depends on the permissions of the directories
>  in the path to the file, as given in path-name.)"
> 
> So it shouldn't complain about a filename which you're allowed to try to
> stat, even if there's nothing there. And it would depend on the privs of
> the wrong user in looking at the path.

The documentation I've got says:

"R_OK,  W_OK  and  X_OK request checking whether the file exists and has
 read, write and execute permissions, respectively.  F_OK just requests
 checking for the existence of the file."

And IEEE1003.1 agrees: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/access.html

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor