On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 21:22 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Wednesday 15 August 2007 21:13:36 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 21:00 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Wednesday 15 August 2007 20:56:10 Steve Dickson wrote: > > > > Now If I'm not mistaken, its been legal since the 70s to use > > > > O_CREAT without a mode because (depending on the OS) the mode > > > > of parent directory will be used (or something similar)... > > > > > > The problem is that without a mode being passed, the kernel uses whatever > > > the stack contents are. And yes, its conceivable the stack contents could > > > create a world writable setuid file which cannot ever be the intended > > > operation. > > > > So then why not default to a mode of 0 instead, which will do the > > equivalent of bolting a big, flashing "BROKEN" sign to the app? > > Cause then I think you get another error away from the actual error and windup > troubleshooting the wrong problem. This *is* a big flashing "BROKEN" sign at > the right point in the software to tell you what really went wrong. I also find it difficult to understand why forcing code to use (foo->open)() is a good idea. I understand that's a side effect of C's, uh... "legacy", but it still bites. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
