Re: Why is chmod(2)?

Ed Hall (edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com)
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:33:57 -0700


Two things:

1) O_NONE, etc. Why not? It's symmetrical, useful, even elegant.

2) Eliminating chmod() & friends. Why? All you'll be doing is insuring
that programs that are secure on, say, FreeBSD or Solaris, have
dangerous security issues on Linux (open/f*/close introduces
potential races as well as eliminating others), and vice-versa.

Not a good idea.

-Ed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/