Messages in this thread | | | From | sergey@memco ... | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:30:42 -0400 | Subject | Re: Why is chmod(2)? |
| |
Werner Almesberger <almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch> on 09/23/99 06:59:28 AM
To: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@sfgoth.com> cc: Kristian Koehntopp <kris@koehntopp.de>, Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu (bcc: Sergey Tsybanov/San Jose/Memco Software)
Subject: Re: Why is chmod(2)?
Hi !
Semantics of O_RDONLY was always zero since UNIX 6 at least. Identificator of O_RDONLY was appeared in UNIX 7. The only two problems I see here. 1. bad driver writers. 2. O_NOACCESS feature itself.
Sergey Tsybanov
Original message:
Mitchell Blank Jr wrote: > I am *very* wary of this idea. A year or two ago there was a big hole > in the BSD's because you could do: > i = open("foo", 0) > without any access to "foo" and get a filedescriptor without read or > write access.
Try it on Linux ;-) O_RDONLY is 0, O_WRONLY is 1, O_RDWR is 2, O_NOACCESS is 3. In order to open anything with O_NOACCESS, you're required to have both read _and_ write access.
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH werner.almesberger@ica.epfl.ch / /_IN_R_131__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
- 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/
- 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/
| |