Re: mknod(2) and POSIX

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:12:28PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
 > Agreed that making fifos with mknod is an odd thing to do, but if it's
 > in posix, then we should do it unless there's something really bad about
 > supporting the posix usage.  In this case, it just seems silly to have a
 > second way to make fifos, not harmful.

It might be construed as harmful in a future where mknod is otherwise
removed, but that's not happening anytime soon.

However, I notice that mknod(2) does not describe how to set the
object type with the type bits of the mode argument, or document which
object types are allowed, and mkfifo(2) also does not say whether
S_IFIFO should be set in the mode argument or not.

(Though mkfifo(2) hints not by not documenting EINVAL for "The
supplied mode is invalid", this sort of inference is annoying even in
standards and really not ok for docs...)

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost