On 11/08/2020 00:28, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:09:09PM +0000, David Laight wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:11:53PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>>> It seems that there is no more complains nor questions. Do you want me >>>> to send another series to fix the order of the S-o-b in patch 7? >>> >>> There is a major question regarding the API design and the choice of >>> hooking that stuff on open(). And I have not heard anything resembling >>> a coherent answer. >> >> To me O_MAYEXEC is just the wrong name. >> The bit would be (something like) O_INTERPRET to indicate >> what you want to do with the contents. The properties is "execute permission". This can then be checked by interpreters or other applications, then the generic O_MAYEXEC name. > > ... which does not answer the question - name of constant is the least of > the worries here. Why the hell is "apply some unspecified checks to > file" combined with opening it, rather than being an independent primitive > you apply to an already opened file? Just in case - "'cuz that's how we'd > done it" does not make a good answer... > That is not the case, see https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/917bb071-8b1a-3ba4-dc16-f8d7b4cc849f@xxxxxxxxxxx/
