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: Request for comments: reserving a value for O_SEARCH and O_EXEC

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 09:42:54AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > As told you earlier on linux-kernel just send a patch with your semantics
> Apologies, I did not see the reply, and I'm still looking for it. I
> should have put the request to CC me more prominently in the email...

Sorry, it actually was libc-alpha that I replied to.  I didn't notice
you sent two slightly different messages instead of a having a cross-posted
discussion, which would have been more useful.

> > to lkml.  We're not going to reserve a value for a namespace that is
> > reserved for the kernel to implement something that should better
> > be done in kernel space.
> Did you mean "that should better be done in user space"?

No.  It should be done in kernelspace, just like all other O_ flags.

> Whether O_SEARCH and O_EXEC are provided fully natively by the kernel
> or handled by userspace, either way a reserved value in the open flags
> must be set aside. Otherwise any value used by the userspace
> implementation would risk conflicting with future kernel features
> using the same bit(s).

No flag is going to get reserved without a proper (kernel-level)

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