On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 04:40:29PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > 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?
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 04:40:29PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> 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?
My gut feeling on
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 29 17:52:57 2000
> Should the majority win? I.e. should we say OK, as we do now?
We should, but we don't. 2.4 does the right thing.
2.2 got the following change back in 2.2.6:
res = PTR_ERR(dentry);
if (!IS_ERR(dentry)) {
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Considering your previous workplace... How does official SVR{4,5} behave?
>
> Under SCO UnixWare 7.1.1 you can happily write to devices in a readonly
> mounted (vxfs) filesystem. You can also happily acc
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Considering your previous workplace... How does official SVR{4,5} behave?
Under SCO UnixWare 7.1.1 you can happily write to devices in a readonly
mounted (vxfs) filesystem. You can also happily access(W_OK) them. Just
tried, right now (ok, it should ha
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> The classical interpretation of the access(2) system call is "do the same
> type of permission check as open(2) would do but using real uid in the
> credentials instead of effective (or on Linux fs) uid".
> All I am saying is that if open on HP
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> All I am saying is that if open on HP/UX allows writing but access denies
> it, it is definitely a bug (in HP/UX). Let's remember why access(2) was
> invented at all -- to allow setuid-privileged programs to do permission
> checks based on real uid
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 a
just to add (obvious!) -- whenever "uid" was mentioned I implied "uid and
gid"...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed the point at issue here, and what changed when.
> > Assuming (perhaps wrongly) it's independent of filesyst
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Sorry, I missed the point at issue here, and what changed when.
> Assuming (perhaps wrongly) it's independent of filesystem type,
>
> Solaris yes ok ok
> HP-UX yes EROFS ok
>
> I don't
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Sorry, I missed the point at issue here, and what changed when.
> Assuming (perhaps wrongly) it's independent of filesystem type,
>
> Solaris yes ok ok
> HP-UX yes EROFS ok
>
> I don't hav
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > Yes, and I think you'll have difficulty, Andries, finding
> > any other Unices which interpret the standard as you and
> > Linux do: Solaris, HP-UX, UnixWare and OpenServer all allow
> > writing to a de
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so if you read the standard carefully you get a bogus result.
> >
> > Why bogus? Things could have been otherwise, but the impo
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so if you read the standard carefully you get a bogus result.
> >
> > Why bogus? Things could have been otherwise, but the im
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > Ok, so if you read the standard carefully you get a bogus result.
>
> Why bogus? Things could have been otherwise, but the important
> part is that all Unices do things the same way
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Peter Cordes wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that Linux should work in the way that is most useful,
> as long as that doesn't stop us from running stuff written for other unices.
> Unix is mostly good, but parts of it suck. There's no reason to keep the
> parts that suck, exc
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 01:42:51PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:35:22PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
>
> > While doing some hdparm hacking, after booting with init=/bin/sh, I noticed
> > that open(1) doesn't work when / is mounted read only.
>
> Already long ago open
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Ok, so if you read the standard carefully you get a bogus result.
Why bogus? Things could have been otherwise, but the important
part is that all Unices do things the same way.
> Question: Was it meant this way, or did someone jus
Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > > > access("/dev/tty2", R_OK|W_OK) = -1 EROFS (Read-only file system)
> >
> > > You misunderstand the function of access(). The standard says
> > >
> > > [EROFS] write a
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > > access("/dev/tty2", R_OK|W_OK) = -1 EROFS (Read-only file system)
>
> > You misunderstand the function of access(). The standard says
> >
> > [EROFS] write access shall fail if write access is r
Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > access("/dev/tty2", R_OK|W_OK) = -1 EROFS (Read-only file system)
> You misunderstand the function of access(). The standard says
>
> [EROFS] write access shall fail if write access is requested
> for a file on a read-only file system
The intent of th
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:35:22PM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
> While doing some hdparm hacking, after booting with init=/bin/sh, I noticed
> that open(1) doesn't work when / is mounted read only.
Already long ago open(1) was renamed to openvt(1), so it may be that
have a very old version. See
23 matches
Mail list logo
