This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc 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: Revisiting O_SEARCH and O_EXEC

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 09:38:38PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Another option, which I like better, is defining both O_EXEC and
> > O_SEARCH to 3. This makes them look more like access modes, as they
> > should, and avoids the need to change the definition of O_ACCMODE.
> > However, I think this option would require agreement from the kernel
> > folks, since it would be big trouble if they later wanted to use this
> > value for something else. On the plus side, using the value of 3 would
> > allow the kernel folks to explicitly support O_SEARCH and O_EXEC
> > semantics kernel-side in the future, without help from the userspace
> > library functions.
> *Whatever* the option I think it should be coordinated with the kernel in 
> the first place.


I can't see any reason why implementing these two modes in libc would be
preferable over doing it in the kernel.  I could think of many reasons why it
would be a bad idea.

Rich, given that you're obviously interested in implementing this feature,
how about you try to send patches implemnenting it in the kernel?

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