Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:28:00 -0500
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <>
To: Rich Felker <>
Cc: libc-alpha <>,
Subject: Re: O_EXEC and O_SEARCH

>>> And, as far as I observed, current linux man pages don't tell us
>>> 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.