[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup)

> Yes, and that is exactly the difference between having a side effect
> on the open(2), versus having the effect as a result of a write(2).
> Unfortunately, there are already some cases where an open
> on a device can have unexpected results. If you don't want
> to get blocked waiting for the carrier-detect signal from the
> modem when opening a tty device, you had better specify the
> O_NONBLOCK option on the open. If you don't want this flag
> to be active during the actual I/O operations, then you would
> have to do an fcntl to clear the O_NONBLOCK again after the open.
> So I guess things have already been a bit messy in this
> area for many years, even before linux even existed, and
> in some cases you can't really do anything about it because
> the behaviour is mandated by the applicable standards, like
> POSIX, SUS, or whatever.
> (The blocking of the open on a tty device is explicitly
> documented in my copy of the X/Open specification.)
> Fortunately, blocking the nightly backup program by making it
> accidentally open a tty is not quite as catastrophic as having
> it start a nuclear war, or format the disks, or something,
> just because a user was playing games with symlinks.

Maybe not *as* catastrophic, but security hole, anyway. User should
not be able to block system backups.

Small demonstration for bugtraq, anyone?
I'm "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.112 / U:1.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site