[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why is chmod(2)?
    Kristian Koehntopp wrote:
    > b. Is it possible?

    Yes if you define an `O_NONE' flag -- i.e. as opposed to O_RDONLY etc.

    All the problems with side effects due to open and lack of permissions
    are avoided by that: O_NONE means "return me a cookie, don't do anything

    The different between stat() and lstat() is also covered nicely by
    `O_NOFOLLOW', which we already have.

    > a. Is this desireable?

    For programs that call stat() on a lot of things, the added
    overhead of open/fstat/close is probably significant.

    For the rarer things like fchflags() which might arrive, perhaps O_NONE
    this is a good idea. It is certainly simpler than the proposals to add

    And as you point out, it's possible to improve security this way.

    I recommend coding a patch to find out if O_NONE is really as easy as it

    -- Jamie

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.018 / U:1.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site