[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:48:14 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: 39236@...bugs.gnu.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: coreutils cp mishandles error return from lchmod
* Rich Felker:
>> Hmm. The way I read the musl code, the O_PATH descriptor already
>> exists. At this point, you can just chmod the O_PATH descriptor, and
>> have the kernel report EOPNOTSUPP if the file system does not support
>> that.
>
> Oh, you mean the second one after it's already open? Maybe that's ok.
Yes, that's what I meant.
> I was concerned it might follow the link and chmod the target at that
> point.
In my tests, it works. I think it's also documented behavior for chown
on these pseudo-files.
I also verified that closing an O_PATH descriptor does not release POSIX
advisory locks for the same file. But I'm wondering if there's still
something we are missing.
Thanks,
Florian
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.
