From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfs: new open(2) flag to open filesystem node Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:50:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <2547.1246393535@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Miklos Szeredi , dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, adilger@sun.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.26]:25677 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750945AbZGFFuZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:50:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 17:40, Linus Torvalds wrote: > O_SEARCH is only meaningful for directories. For anything else, it's not > at all POSIX - it's expressly defined to be "undefined". And this is why there is the differentiation with O_EXEC. Yes, i didn't mention it in the last email. But I mentioned it when it came up the first time. I don't say this is indeed what is wanted/needed here. But there are IMO some similarities and I think implementing O_SEARCH and O_EXEC is desirable. If it means completely different implementations from te proposed O_NODE, so be it. But my gut tells me there is some overlay.