[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090928155353.GA25375@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:53:53 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: new O_NODE open flag
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > It's not possible even without this flag. Consider:
> >
> > fd1 = open("/tmp/foo",flags);
> > rc = rename("/tmp/foo","/tmp/bar");
> > fd2 = open("/tmp/foo",flags);
> >
> > Or were you asking if *absent that sort of tomfoolery* if it would work?
>
> No, the point is that we HAVE an fd that points to the original "/tmp/foo"
> opened with O_NODE, and now (after an ioctl, stat, etc) we decide it is
> safe to open the file read and/or write without releasing the existing
> fd. The whole point is to AVOID this kind of tomfoolery.
Make sense, and openat() seems like a good way to accomplish it.
-- Jamie
--
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