Re: [RFC] a corner case of open(2)

[Cedric Blancher]

Existing UNIX behaviour is better. Also, for open() a directory,
remember that int fd=open(), fchdir(fd) must work.

Ced

On 26 April 2016 at 19:55, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         According to POSIX (and behaviour on other Unices) the following
> should succeed: open("/tmp", O_CREAT, 0) does not have O_EXCL and the pathname
> does refer to existing object, so O_CREAT is ignored and the call is
> equivalent to open("/tmp", 0), which succeeds.
>
>         We have it rejected with EISDIR.  The thing is, the standard behaviour
> is actually less messy wrt code, and do_last()/lookup_open()/atomic_open()
> badly needs untangling.
>
>         Another place where we produce a bogus EISDIR is O_CREAT|O_EXCL on
> an existing directory.  POSIX (and other Unices) have EEXIST there.  In some
> cases we produce EEXIST, in some - EISDIR.  Uniform EEXIST is actually easier.
>
>         It is a change of user-visible behaviour, but I would be very
> surprised if anything broke from that change.  And it would help to simplify
> the awful mess we have in there.
>
>         Comments?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@xxxxxxxxx>
Institute Pasteur