Re: [PATCH] fs: Evaluate O_WRONLY | O_RDWR to O_RDWR

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:57:17AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > > A user can open(O_WRONLY | O_RDWR) and the options are valid.
> > > However, OPEN_FMODE() evaluates both FMODE_READ and FMODE_WRITE,
> > > as negative. We also need to protect the lower layers from this
> > > anomaly.
> > >
> > > Solve it by dropping O_WRONLY, so O_RDWR takes precedence.
> >
> > Congratulations, you've broken fdutils...  Passing 3 in lower bits
> > of open() flags is *not* the same as O_RDWR; behaiviour is
> > different and deliberately chosen by existing userland code.
> >
> > IOW, NAK.
> 
> I am eager to hear what it means then.

Open for ioctls, basically.  No read/write allowed, no checks for
media writability, etc. done at open() time, both read and write
*permissions* required from device node.

Think of the things like formatting a floppy, for example...



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux