[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200122205605.GF30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:56:05 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: 39236@...bugs.gnu.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: coreutils cp mishandles error return from lchmod
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 09:48:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
>
> >> Hmm. The way I read the musl code, the O_PATH descriptor already
> >> exists. At this point, you can just chmod the O_PATH descriptor, and
> >> have the kernel report EOPNOTSUPP if the file system does not support
> >> that.
> >
> > Oh, you mean the second one after it's already open? Maybe that's ok.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant.
>
> > I was concerned it might follow the link and chmod the target at that
> > point.
>
> In my tests, it works. I think it's also documented behavior for chown
> on these pseudo-files.
Do you know where we might find that documentation?
> I also verified that closing an O_PATH descriptor does not release POSIX
> advisory locks for the same file. But I'm wondering if there's still
> something we are missing.
Thanks, I hadn't thought to check that, but wouldn't have expected it
to be a problem since O_PATH is not actually open to the file.
Rich
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.
