Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:59:01 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_vnops.c Message-ID: <447EBA65.9000103@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200605311315.k4VDFUhD093628@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200605311315.k4VDFUhD093628@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Konovalov wrote: > maxim 2006-05-31 13:15:29 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/ufs/ufs ufs_vnops.c > Log: > o According to POSIX, the result of ftruncate(2) is unspecified > for file types other than VREG, VDIR and shared memory objects. > We already handle VREG, VLNK and VDIR cases. Silently ignore > truncate requests for all the rest. Adjust comments. > > PR: kern/98064 > Submitted by: bde > Security: local DoS > Regress. test: regression/fifo/fifo_misc > MFC after: 2 weeks > > Revision Changes Path > 1.276 +22 -4 src/sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_vnops.c If POSIX says that the result is undefined, wouldn't it be in our best interests to return EBADF instead of 0? Or would that break 3rd party software? Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?447EBA65.9000103>