Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:23:14 +0200 | From | Harald Koenig <> | Subject | Re: Why is chmod(2)? |
| |
On Sep 22, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Kristian Koehntopp wrote: > > b. Is it possible? > > Yes if you define an `O_NONE' flag -- i.e. as opposed to O_RDONLY etc. > > All the problems with side effects due to open and lack of permissions > are avoided by that: O_NONE means "return me a cookie, don't do anything > else".
but you still have to mark that file being `opened' (in use), or how do you avoid race conditions between open() and chmod() ?
Harald -- All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____ be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\ 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\ \ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\ \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|// Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \ koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^
- 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/
| |