![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Chris Wright, Sat, Apr 17, 2004 00:22:17 +0200: > > My concern is that the tests are rather pointing that something in > > kernel is not implemented correctly. _The_ checks in particular. > > Because if they _are_ implemented correctly, you don't need to patch the > > functionality in the user space. > > > > And if the kernel code does check the incoming arguments correctly, > > what is the point to check them again? Just to make the point, that > > passing in not an absolute path is not portable? > > The kernel interface is simple and clean. And in fact, requires no > slashes else you'll get -EACCES. It's not POSIX, but the library > interface is. > > We just discussed this yesterday: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108205593100003&r=1&w=2 now, what's is the check in the library for? BTW, it is returning the other error code (EINVAL instead of EACCES), just on top of all the confusion with slashes. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||