[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fexecve, round 2
On Sun 18 Nov 2012 at 04:40:58 +0100, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
> > This appears to contradict either the description of O_EXEC in the
> > standard, or the standard's rationale for adding fexecve(). The
> > standard says O_EXEC causes the file to be open for execution "only".
> The definition is really vague. As I understand, nothing forbids opening
Unortunately, it does, in
Applications shall specify exactly one of the first five values (file
access modes) below in the value of oflag:
Open for execute only (non-directory files). The result is unspecified
if this flag is applied to a directory.
Open for reading only.
Open for reading and writing. The result is undefined if this flag is
applied to a FIFO.
Open directory for search only. The result is unspecified if this flag
is applied to a non-directory file.
Open for writing only.
(That document specifies waaaaay too many O_* flags, imho. In particular
O_TTY_INIT seems a far too specific use-case to need such a general
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- There's no point being grown-up if you
\X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- can't be childish sometimes. -The 4th Doctor
Main Index |
Thread Index |