Jamie Lokier wrote:
quoted text >Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>
>>>Reiser4 may have a mount option for whoose who like or have to use
>>>traditional O_DIRECTORY semantics. There would be no /metas under
>>>non-directories, if user wants that.
>>>
>>>
>>Again, O_DIRECTORY was added to solve a real-world race, not just for
>>the sake of it. If you really want to add that option I'll research the
>>CAN number for you so you can named it after that - or just call it -o
>>insecure directly.
>>
>>
>
>man open(2) explains that O_DIRECTORY is used by opendir() to prevent
>blocking when opening pipes and certain devices*, and should only by
>used by opendir (of course it isn't only used by opendir, as it's a
>handy optimisation).
>
>In fact O_DIRECTORY is also used by Glibc to optimise away stat()
>before and fstat() after calls.
>
>An O_NODEVICE flag would be equally secure, and more generally useful.
>
>It's important that device nodes cannot be opened when O_DIRECTORY is
>set. This is compatible with reiser4 file-as-directory semantics, but
>I don't know if reiser4 actually implements this. If it does (and it
>should) then there is no device blocking problem.
>
>That leaves only the optimisation of fstat() in opendir().
>
>But that begs the question: do we want opendir() to succeed on a reiser4 file?
>
>
Yes, we do. Why not? Not is more complex.....
quoted text >It's up to us to decide if we like that semantic, or prefer a
>different one such as the one I described before (path search enters
>file-as-directory, but opendir() directly on it fails), or the Sun
>syscalls someone mentioned.
>
>-- Jamie
>
>
>* Aside: O_NONBLOCK|O_NOCTTY is an effective way to prevent blocking on
>many systems. It's best if you can avoid opening devices at all though.
>
>
>
>
