Re: [RFC] O_NOACC: open without any access
From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Tue Jun 23 2009 - 16:04:49 EST
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, David Howells wrote:
> > Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Define O_NOACC as 3. On open(..., O_FILESYSTEM | O_NOACC) require no
> > > privileges on the file.
> > It must also work with O_NOFOLLOW, which I think your suggestion will.
> This does sound like a fairly natural extension of what we already do.
> We essentially already have O_NOACCESS (3), and use it exactly because we
> need to do operations on a file descriptor without "real" accesses
> (notably things like accessing /dev/cdrom without waiting/checking for the
> disk being present etc).
> O_FILESYSTEM I don't like as a name (to me, it doesn't say _what_ it is
> doing - of course an open works on a filesystem!), but the concept of
> saying "don't follow device nodes - just open the node itself" makes
> perfect sense. Together with O_NOFOLLOW it also fairly naturally means
> "give me the actual symlink _node_, don't return error or follow it".
O_NODEV? It applies just as well to fifos, sockets and symlinks, but
it's hard to express that in a compact way.
> That said, I do _not_ like the notion of
> > Add a new inode->i_filesystem_fop pointer
> regardless of whether it's in inode->i_op or wherever. I think we should
> just handle this in the regular "inode->f_op->open" routine, the same way
No, it's a totally different open, one comes from the device/fifo
code, the other from the filesystem. Yes, the filesystem could
in theory wedge itself between the VFS and device's f_ops. Not
sure if that's how this should be done, though...
Also how should the default case (filesystem doesn't handle
O_NODEV) be handled. The nice thing about O_NODEV | O_NOACCESS
would be that it could be implemented totally in generic code in
a secure way and it would even be useful for a variety of
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/