Re: POSIX message queues, libmqueue: mq_open, mq_unlink

[Chris Wright]

* Alex Riesen (fork0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> My concern is that the tests are rather pointing that something in
> kernel is not implemented correctly. _The_ checks in particular.
> Because if they _are_ implemented correctly, you don't need to patch the
> functionality in the user space.
>
> And if the kernel code does check the incoming arguments correctly,
> what is the point to check them again? Just to make the point, that
> passing in not an absolute path is not portable?

The kernel interface is simple and clean.  And in fact, requires no
slashes else you'll get -EACCES.  It's not POSIX, but the library
interface is.

We just discussed this yesterday:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108205593100003&r=1&w=2

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/