On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > Historically, on systems that allow write access to devices > on r/o filesystems access() doesn't return EROFS for devices. Moreover, that's > what one might reasonably expect and there are programs relying on that. > Principle of minimal surprise and all such... That is precisely the point I was making in my previous email. But both that email and yours asnwer only one question: a) should access(2) behave identical to open(2) (with switched uid)? The answer is Yes. but the main question still remains unanswered: b) what should be the return of access(W_OK) (or, the same, open() for write with switched uid) for devices on a readonly-mounted filesystems? Should the majority win? I.e. should we say OK, as we do now? Regards, Tigran - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- access() says EROFS even for device files if /dev is mo... Peter Cordes
- Re: access() says EROFS even for device files if /... Andries Brouwer
- Re: access() says EROFS even for device files ... Rogier Wolff
- Re: access() says EROFS even for device fi... Andries Brouwer
- Re: access() says EROFS even for devic... Rogier Wolff
- Re: access() says EROFS even for ... Andries Brouwer
- Re: access() says EROFS even ... Hugh Dickins
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Alexander Viro
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Hugh Dickins
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Alexander Viro
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Alexander Viro
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Olivier Galibert
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Richard B. Johnson
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Alexander Viro
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Hugh Dickins
- Re: access() says EROFS e... Richard B. Johnson