Differences between version 3 and revision by previous author of EACCES.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 3 | Last edited on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 3:23:51 pm | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
| Older page: | version 1 | Last edited on Monday, October 28, 2002 9:36:52 pm | by PerryLorier | Revert |
@@ -2,4 +2,10 @@
This is often confused with [EPERM], to quote SUSv3:
;:''Permission denied. An attempt was made to access a file in a way forbidden by its file access permissions.''
+
+Examples include:
+* trying to lower a process's nice(1) value (ie make it a higher priority process) when you are not the superuser. (nice uses the setpriority(2) call, not the nice(2) call which returns EPERM).
+* trying to unlink(2) (delete) a file when you do not have write access to the file or the directory, or open a file for reading when you do not have read access.
+
+In general, EACCES seems morely to be used for file permission conflicts, while EPERM seems more likely to be used for process-related permission conflicts. But you can see that even system calls use them differently.
