From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: O_EXEC and O_SEARCH
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:45:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130222004540.GA8836@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
Hi,
I'd like to have a conversation with the glibc team about O_EXEC and
O_SEARCH in the interest of hopefully developing a unified plan for
supporting them on Linux. Presumably the reason glibc still does not
have them is that Linux O_PATH does not exactly match their semantics
in some cases, and O_PATH is sufficiently broken on many kernel
versions to make offering it problematic. In particular, current
coreutils break badly on most kernel versions around 2.6.39-3.6 or so
if O_SEARCH and O_EXEC are defined as O_PATH.
Right now, we're offering O_EXEC and O_SEARCH in musl libc, defining
them as O_PATH. As long as recent Linux is used, this gives nearly
correct semantics, except that combined with O_NOFOLLOW they do not
fail when the final component is a symbolic link. I believe it's
possible to work around this issue on sufficiently modern kernels
where fstat works on O_PATH file descriptors, but adding the
workaround whenever O_PATH|O_NOFOLLOW is in the flags would change the
semantics when O_PATH is used by the caller rather than O_EXEC or
O_SEARCH, since the value is equal. I'm not sure this is desirable.
What should the long-term plan for supporting O_SEARCH and O_EXEC on
Linux be? Should we assume Linux is aiming for O_PATH to eventually
provide compatible semantics, and thus just define O_SEARCH and O_EXEC
as O_PATH? Or is there a need to define a different value (perhaps 3,
the unused access mode) for O_SEARCH and O_EXEC and have open/fcntl
remap it and handle workarounds for Linux semantics that don't match
the POSIX semantics?
Rich
next reply other threads:[~2013-02-22 0:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-22 0:45 Rich Felker [this message]
2013-02-23 3:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-02-23 3:17 ` Rich Felker
2013-02-23 3:58 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-02-23 4:33 ` Rich Felker
2013-02-23 5:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-02-23 5:05 ` Rich Felker
2013-02-23 5:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-02-23 4:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-02-23 5:03 ` Rich Felker
2013-02-23 5:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-02-23 5:28 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130222004540.GA8836@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@aerifal.cx \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).