Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink

From: David Wagner (daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 20:02:30 EST

Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [Lockmeter 2.5] BKL with 51ms hold time, prove me wrong"
Previous message: Badari Pulavarty: "Re: [patch for playing] Patch to support 4000 disks and maintain backward compatibility"
In reply to: Clayton Weaver: "Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink"
Next in thread: Clayton Weaver: "Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Clayton Weaver wrote:
>One other thing: why O_CANLINK (suggested flag
>to open) instead of O_NOLINK?

Because O_CANLINK fails secure; O_NOLINK fails open.
When security is on the line, you really want a fail-safe solution.

And the failure mode of forgetting to specify an O_NOLINK flag
where it should have been specified is going to be a common one.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [Lockmeter 2.5] BKL with 51ms hold time, prove me wrong"
Previous message: Badari Pulavarty: "Re: [patch for playing] Patch to support 4000 disks and maintain backward compatibility"
In reply to: Clayton Weaver: "Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink"
Next in thread: Clayton Weaver: "Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST