On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Historically, on systems that allow write access to devices
> on r/o filesystems access() doesn't return EROFS for devices. Moreover, that's
> what one might reasonably expect and there are programs relying on that.
> Principle of minimal surprise and all such...
That is precisely the point I was making in my previous email. But both
that email and yours asnwer only one question:
a) should access(2) behave identical to open(2) (with switched uid)? The
answer is Yes.
but the main question still remains unanswered:
b) what should be the return of access(W_OK) (or, the same, open() for
write with switched uid) for devices on a readonly-mounted filesystems?
Should the majority win? I.e. should we say OK, as we do now?
Regards,
Tigran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST