On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:21:17 -0500 (CDT), "Jon Ciesla" <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> - if ((fd = open(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
> >> + if ((fd = (open)(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
> >
> > Now you're just being unfriendly about it by finding ways to defeat
> > a helpful check instead of adding the missing mode. What point are
> > you trying to prove by doing this?
>
> What would the preferred fix look like? I'd like to get this sorted out,
> as I'd like to send a patch for one of my affected packages upstream.
I would go for this myself, using Steve's example:
- if ((fd = open(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
+ if (readonly)
+ fd = open(fname, O_RDONLY);
+ else
+ fd = open(fname, O_RDWR|O_CREAT, S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
+ if (fd < 0) {
But please do what your programmer's sense suggests. You're the
master of your code.
-- Pete
--
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
