[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=qr7Uq+KwXFnkjKzFduFYcPz8rzxRQ1x_4JUARha3XyQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:05:03 -0500
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: O_EXEC and O_SEARCH
> I'd like to have a conversation with the glibc team about O_EXEC and
> O_SEARCH in the interest of hopefully developing a unified plan for
> supporting them on Linux. Presumably the reason glibc still does not
> have them is that Linux O_PATH does not exactly match their semantics
> in some cases, and O_PATH is sufficiently broken on many kernel
> versions to make offering it problematic. In particular, current
> coreutils break badly on most kernel versions around 2.6.39-3.6 or so
> if O_SEARCH and O_EXEC are defined as O_PATH.
I'm curious why don't you implement them in kernel directly?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
