[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [27]   [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)
On Sunday 27 May 2001 15:32, Edgar Toernig wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > It won't, the open for "." is handled in the VFS, not the
> > filesystem - it will open the directory. (Without needing to be
> > told it's a directory via O_DIRECTORY.) If you do open("magicdev")
> > you'll get the device, because that's handled by magicdevfs.
> You really mean that "magicdev" is a directory and:
> open("magicdev/.", O_RDONLY);
> open("magicdev", O_RDONLY);
> would both succeed but open different objects?

Yes, and:

open("magicdev/.", O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY);
open("magicdev", O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY);

will both succeed and open the same object.

> > I'm not claiming there isn't breakage somewhere,
> you break UNIX fundamentals. But I'm quite relieved now because I'm
> pretty sure that something like that will never go into the kernel.

OK, I'll take that as "I couldn't find a piece of code that breaks, so
it's on to the legal issues".

SUS doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this. The nearest thing to
a ruling I found was "The special filename dot refers to the directory
specified by its predecessor". Which is not the same thing as:

open("foo", O_RDONLY) == open ("foo/.", O_RDONLY)

I don't know about POSIX (I don't have it: a pox on standards
organizations that don't make their standards freely available) but SUS
doesn't seem to forbid this.

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 12:54    [W:0.296 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site