[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw29MUj+w46yneut2yxXOH1RQmDud5KL8V-SPyPWm1WqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:04:27 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't it because they are essentially emulating an atomic open()
> capable of creating a file with inherited ACLs, according to
> relatively complex rules? open *can* be used with O_CREAT|O_RDONLY
> (touch(1) might do that), which would naively translate into:
Oh, so you don't actually need any file contents at all?
If that is actually a real usage, then maybe we should just say that
"O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY" is fine, and remove the check that it has to be
writable.
That check was always a sanity-check, because people felt that a
temp-file you can't write to is an insane concept. But if there is a
real use case for it, then clearly it's not completely insane. Just
odd.
It's just that single
if (!(acc_mode & MAY_WRITE))
return -EINVAL;
test in build_open_flags(), right?
I'd take a tested patch to remove that (where "tested" means: "yes, I
actually did that unwritable file descriptor thing, and it actually
solved the problem and worked for samba or whatever")
Linus
--
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