Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink

David Wagner (daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu)
11 Apr 2003 01:02:30 GMT

Clayton Weaver wrote:
>One other thing: why O_CANLINK (suggested flag
>to open) instead of O_NOLINK?

Because O_CANLINK fails secure; O_NOLINK fails open.
When security is on the line, you really want a fail-safe solution.

And the failure mode of forgetting to specify an O_NOLINK flag
where it should have been specified is going to be a common one.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

 appens, we have to change
drivers/subsystems (we need) to make dynamic allocation. All of this Is
going to happen for 2.6 ?

Thats why, I am trying to come out with half-cooked workable solution for 2.6.

Thanks,
Badari
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/