Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:22:17 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: POSIX message queues, libmqueue: mq_open, mq_unlink |
| |
* Alex Riesen (fork0@users.sourceforge.net) wrote: > My concern is that the tests are rather pointing that something in > kernel is not implemented correctly. _The_ checks in particular. > Because if they _are_ implemented correctly, you don't need to patch the > functionality in the user space. > > And if the kernel code does check the incoming arguments correctly, > what is the point to check them again? Just to make the point, that > passing in not an absolute path is not portable?
The kernel interface is simple and clean. And in fact, requires no slashes else you'll get -EACCES. It's not POSIX, but the library interface is.
We just discussed this yesterday:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108205593100003&r=1&w=2
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/
| |