[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090212032821.GD28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:28:21 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Description of open_to_namei_flags()?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:10:58PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > static inline int open_to_namei_flags(int flag)
> > {
> > if ((flag+1) & O_ACCMODE)
> > flag++;
> > return flag;
> > }
>
> I noticed that open_to_namei_flags() can't yield
> "00 - no permissions needed" output for "11 - special" input.
> To yield "00 - no permissions needed" output for "11 - special" input,
> I think
>
> static inline int open_to_namei_flags(int flag)
> {
> return (flag + 1) & O_ACCMODE;
> }
>
> is needed.
No. Comments are rather misleading; the code is correct.
> sys_open(path, 0) is open for reading.
> sys_open(path, 1) is open for writing.
> sys_open(path, 2) is open for reading and writing.
> What is sys_open(path, 3) for?
open for ioctls only; checks for rw permissions, doesn't allow read or
write calls. Note that the latter is controlled by ->f_mode, which does
*not* come from open_to_namei_flags() (and is calculated as you suggested).
Results of open_to_namei_flags() are used for permission checks, where
3 -> read|write is correct.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists