[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:28:00 -0500
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: O_EXEC and O_SEARCH
>>> And, as far as I observed, current linux man pages don't tell us
>>> O_PATH|O_NOFOLLOW
>>> behavior. Is this really intentional result? How do you confirmed?
>>
>> Yes, it seems intentional. O_PATH without O_NOFOLLOW would resolve the
>> symbolic link and open a file descriptor referring to the target
>> inode. O_PATH|O_NOFOLLOW opens a file descriptor to the symbolic link
>> inode itself. As far as I can see, this behavior is desirable and
>> intentional with O_PATH but wrong for O_SEARCH or O_EXEC.
>
> Hmm... Why?
> It doesn't match linux man nor posix.
So, I suggest to don't guess and discuss in LKML directly instead.
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.
