Re: Linux 2.1.125 doesn't dump core on SIGSEGV

Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:13:18 +0000

Sounds like the obvious thing is to define an additional O_EXCL_FOLLOW,
and have straight O_EXCL imply O_NOFOLLOW. It's not orthogonal, but the
legacy security implications... Apps can always write O_EXCL|O_NOFOLLOW
if they want to be clear.

That would work as expected and be backward binary compatible without
security implications.

Ken's bit pattern suggestion can be done in a binary backward compatible
way, but I think the existence of O_EXCL_FOLLOW would better document
the semantics.

-- Jamie

On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 09:05:05AM -0800, Ken Pizzini wrote:
> (bit patterns made up for example purposes):
> #define O_CREAT 0x50
> #define O_EXCL 0xa0
> #define O_NOFOLLOW 0xc0
>
> Then we get (O_CREAT|O_EXCL) == (O_CREAT|O_EXCL|O_NOFOLLOW),
> but we can detect that none of O_CREAT, O_EXCL, ((O_CREAT|O_EXCL)&~O_NOFOLLOW)
> match (x&O_NOFOLLOW)==O_NOFOLLOW.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/