[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:17:09 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: O_EXEC and O_SEARCH
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:05:03PM -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > I'd like to have a conversation with the glibc team about O_EXEC and
> > O_SEARCH in the interest of hopefully developing a unified plan for
> > supporting them on Linux. Presumably the reason glibc still does not
> > have them is that Linux O_PATH does not exactly match their semantics
> > in some cases, and O_PATH is sufficiently broken on many kernel
> > versions to make offering it problematic. In particular, current
> > coreutils break badly on most kernel versions around 2.6.39-3.6 or so
> > if O_SEARCH and O_EXEC are defined as O_PATH.
>
> I'm curious why don't you implement them in kernel directly?
See this thread for Linus's opinion on why O_SEARCH was not added:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/33611
O_NODE seems to have been renamed to O_PATH, or perhaps O_PATH was a
later independent implementation of the same idea; it's not clear to
me which happened. But the idea is that the kernel folks did not want
to do O_SEARCH and O_EXEC properly in kernelspace but instead wanted
to provide a more general flag that could be used to implement both
O_SEARCH and O_EXEC.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
