Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:33:23 +0200 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: Why is chmod(2)? |
| |
Werner Almesberger wrote: > Jamie Lokier wrote: > > I recommend coding a patch to find out if O_NONE is really as easy as it > > seems. > > Note that the equivalent of O_NONE has been around on Linux since '92 or > so (numeric value 3, I usually call it O_NOACCESS). It is required for > things like fdformat and setfdprm. LILO also uses it. So the "main code > path" already supports this. Drivers looking at f_mode or f_flags may be > a different story, though.
I'm suggesting a file opened O_NONE would never call driver code. It's just an inode reference, for the same kind of operations you can do with a file name.
So fstat() and close() are allowed, but ioctl(), fcntl(), read() etc. will all fail without calling any drivers or filesystem code.
-- Jamie
- 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/
| |