This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: bug with touch t/

On Mar  6 14:56, Eric Blake wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at>> writes:
> > 
> > But the flags are not O_RDONLY|O_CREAT.  They are O_WRONLY|O_CREAT.
> I still think Linux is wrong - t/ is not an existing directory, so you can't 
> claim that an attempt was made to open an existing directory with O_WRONLY.  
> But I guess it is a bit ambiguous, since if t/ did exist, then opening t/. 
> should indeed fail with EISDIR; at any rate, it is certainly more efficient to 
> blindly reject O_WRONLY due to the trailing slash without even checking for the 
> existence of t.

In our case I added a special case to emit EISDIR, otherwise we would
get ENOENT automatically (that's what STATUS_OBJECT_NAME_INVALID gets
converted to).  However, I'm somewhat puzzled that you used that bash

  $ : > t/
  bash: t/: Is a directory.

If what you said is right, and if I revert the change to,
we would get a ENOENT in that case, too.  And given your arguments,
that should be correct.

Do you agree?

> Maybe it's worth asking the Austin Group for clarification?  I already asked 

Maybe, but the upcoming 1.5.25 bugfix release will not be affected
by this.

> > Which chapter in the austin doc are you refering to?  I can't find
> > this re-wording for some reason.
> The rewording for path resolution is in section XBD 4.12 (page 109 in draft 4 
> of the 200x spec).

I have only Draft 3 here, but I see what you mean.  Nevertheless,
what about the `: > t/' case above?


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]