On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:47:09AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> ps: But I'm not sure this is a POSIX problem, POSIX has no procfs,
> and so anything that uses one is outside the bounds of what POSIX
> specifies, and into the great vastness of beyond all knowledge -
> ie: for POSIX, anything on a
Robert Elz wrote:
> ps: But I'm not sure this is a POSIX problem, POSIX has no procfs,
> and so anything that uses one is outside the bounds of what POSIX
> specifies, and into the great vastness of beyond all knowledge -
> ie: for POSIX, anything on a procfs is an unspecified operation.
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>Date:Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:12:52 - (UTC)
>From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
>Message-ID:
> | namei() return EEXIST when it works on a CREATE operation and
> | crosses a mountpoint.
>Could we perhaps simply have
Date:Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:12:52 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| namei() return EEXIST when it works on a CREATE operation and
| crosses a mountpoint.
Could we perhaps simply have procfs remove O_CREAT from the flags
passed by
rhia...@falu.nl (Rhialto) writes:
>On Thu 03 Jun 2021 at 09:12:52 -, Michael van Elst wrote:
>> What happens:
>>=20
>> namei() return EEXIST when it works on a CREATE operation and
>> crosses a mountpoint.
>>=20
>> procfs cheats in that the directory nodes like /proc/$pid/fd are
>> served by
On Thu 03 Jun 2021 at 09:12:52 -, Michael van Elst wrote:
> What happens:
>
> namei() return EEXIST when it works on a CREATE operation and
> crosses a mountpoint.
>
> procfs cheats in that the directory nodes like /proc/$pid/fd are
> served by procfs and have a v_mount pointing to /proc.
sim...@netbsd.org (Simon Burge) writes:
>Jaromir wrote:
>> > On 3/06/21 9:58 am, Mark Davies wrote:
>> > > done - https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14727
>> >
>> > And looks like they are throwing it back as a kernel bug
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14727#c3
>>
Jaromir wrote:
> > On 3/06/21 9:58 am, Mark Davies wrote:
> > > done - https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14727
> >
> > And looks like they are throwing it back as a kernel bug
> >
> > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14727#c3
>
> O_CREAT really shouldn't cause the open to fail
Le jeu. 3 juin 2021 à 00:14, Mark Davies a écrit :
>
>
>
> On 3/06/21 9:58 am, Mark Davies wrote:
> > done - https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14727
>
> And looks like they are throwing it back as a kernel bug
>
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14727#c3
O_CREAT really
