On 11/08/2020 00:28, Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:09:09PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
quoted
quoted
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:11:53PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
quoted
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@digikod.net/ (local)