# Re: \[PATCH v7 0/7\] Add support for O\_MAYEXEC

- From: Mickaël Salaün \<mic@digikod.net\>
- Date: 2020-08-10 22:47:42 
- List: linux-security-module
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2020/08/186282
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2020/07/185048/t.md

```text


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.

> 
> ... 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/
```