Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Why is chmod(2)? | Date | Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:33:57 -0700 | From | Ed Hall <> |
| |
Two things:
1) O_NONE, etc. Why not? It's symmetrical, useful, even elegant.
2) Eliminating chmod() & friends. Why? All you'll be doing is insuring that programs that are secure on, say, FreeBSD or Solaris, have dangerous security issues on Linux (open/f*/close introduces potential races as well as eliminating others), and vice-versa.
Not a good idea.
-Ed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |