Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:54:17 -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 > Right now, we're offering O_EXEC and O_SEARCH in musl libc, defining > them as O_PATH. As long as recent Linux is used, this gives nearly > correct semantics, except that combined with O_NOFOLLOW they do not > fail when the final component is a symbolic link. I believe it's > possible to work around this issue on sufficiently modern kernels > where fstat works on O_PATH file descriptors, but adding the > workaround whenever O_PATH|O_NOFOLLOW is in the flags would change the > semantics when O_PATH is used by the caller rather than O_EXEC or > O_SEARCH, since the value is equal. I'm not sure this is desirable. I have one more question. If I understand correctly, O_NOFOLLOW is unspecified in POSIX. Why do you think the current behavior is not correct? 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? I mean the current behavior is not natural to me and I doubt it is not intentional one.
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.