[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160414090938.44c56c78@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:09:38 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
zab@...hat.com, emunson@...mai.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, josh@...htriplett.org, xemul@...allels.com,
milosz@...in.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, arnd@...db.de,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
iulia.manda21@...il.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
mguzik@...hat.com, adobriyan@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, gorcunov@...il.com, fw@...eb.enyo.de,
walters@...bum.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] vfs: Define new syscall umask2 [formerly
getumask]
Hi Richard,
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:05:33 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> It's not possible to read the process umask without also modifying it,
> which is what umask(2) does. A library cannot read umask safely,
> especially if the main program might be multithreaded.
I was wondering if you really need to read the umask, or would just a
"ignore umask" flag to open{,at} do what you want?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists