Message-ID: <4080060F.7030604@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:13:03 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040411
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Riesen <ari@mbs-software.de>
CC: Michal Wronski <wrona@mat.uni.torun.pl>,
       Krzysztof Benedyczak <golbi@mat.uni.torun.pl>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: POSIX message queues, libmqueue: mq_open, mq_unlink
References: <20040416081155.GB7815@linux-ari.internal>
In-Reply-To: <20040416081155.GB7815@linux-ari.internal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 961
Lines: 22

Alex Riesen wrote:

> Looking over the code in libmqueue-4.31, I noticed the checks for the
> name validity in the mq_open and mq_unlink. Why are they needed?  They
> are pointless if the code in kernel depends on the valid name,

You are contradicting yourself.

Anyway, non-absolute path names passed to the functions mean the
behavior is unspecified.  No portable application must ever do this.  It
is enforced for this reason plus if there comes a time when we want to
do something special which doesn't conflict with standard-compliant
behavior we have a possibility for that.  Unlike wh6at you think, the
tests *are* useful.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/