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.