On 11/08/2020 10:09, David Laight wrote: >> 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. > > The english sense of MAYEXEC is just wrong for what you are trying > to check. We think it reflects exactly what it's purpose is. > >>> ... 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... > > Maybe an access_ok() that acts on an open fd would be more > appropriate. > Which might end up being an fcntrl() action. > That would give you a full 32bit mask of options. I previously talk about fcntl(2): https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/eaf5bc42-e086-740b-a90c-93e67c535eee@xxxxxxxxxxx/
