From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike? Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:57:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20060222195721.GC28219@fieldses.org> References: <20060220221948.GC5733@linuxhacker.ru> <20060220215122.7aa8bbe5.akpm@osdl.org> <1140530396.7864.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060221232607.GS22042@fieldses.org> <1140564751.8088.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Drokin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:2958 "EHLO pickle.fieldses.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750831AbWBVT50 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:57:26 -0500 To: Trond Myklebust Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1140564751.8088.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto > FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it > would mean that you could no longer do something like > > OPEN(READ|WRITE,DENY_WRITE) > > which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes. Since exec will never use the above combination, I don't think the current proposal mandates any particular semantics in that case. So I'm assuming that we could choose the semantics to fit nfsd's purposes. Am I missing anything? --b.