Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263992AbUDPXrD (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:47:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263974AbUDPXoI (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:44:08 -0400 Received: from smtp.mailix.net ([216.148.213.132]:41665 "EHLO smtp.mailix.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263895AbUDPXnM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:43:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:43:03 +0200 From: Alex Riesen To: Chris Wright Cc: Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel Message-ID: <20040416234303.GA1932@steel.home> Reply-To: Alex Riesen Mail-Followup-To: Alex Riesen , Chris Wright , Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel References: <4080060F.7030604@redhat.com> <20040416213851.GA1784@steel.home> <20040416152217.C22989@build.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040416152217.C22989@build.pdx.osdl.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fork0@users.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: POSIX message queues, libmqueue: mq_open, mq_unlink Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Report: * 0.5 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DIALUP RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP * [80.140.244.238 listed in dnsbl.njabl.org] * 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address * [80.140.244.238 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS * [80.140.244.238 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RCVD_IN_NJABL RBL: Received via a relay in dnsbl.njabl.org * [80.140.244.238 listed in dnsbl.njabl.org] X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.1 (built Thu Oct 23 13:26:47 PDT 2003) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes X-uvscan-result: clean (1BEczB-0002ez-GC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1168 Lines: 27 Chris Wright, Sat, Apr 17, 2004 00:22:17 +0200: > > My concern is that the tests are rather pointing that something in > > kernel is not implemented correctly. _The_ checks in particular. > > Because if they _are_ implemented correctly, you don't need to patch the > > functionality in the user space. > > > > And if the kernel code does check the incoming arguments correctly, > > what is the point to check them again? Just to make the point, that > > passing in not an absolute path is not portable? > > The kernel interface is simple and clean. And in fact, requires no > slashes else you'll get -EACCES. It's not POSIX, but the library > interface is. > > We just discussed this yesterday: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108205593100003&r=1&w=2 now, what's is the check in the library for? BTW, it is returning the other error code (EINVAL instead of EACCES), just on top of all the confusion with slashes. - 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/