define(`read_file_perms',`{ getattr open read lock ioctl }')
define(`mmap_read_file_perms',`{ getattr open map read ioctl }')
I think that the general expectation would be that mmap_read_file_perms is a
superset of read_file_perms. Is there any reason why mmap_read_file_perms
doesn't include lock permission? If not I think we should add it to avoid
surprises.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 2/9/19 5:25 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> define(`read_file_perms',`{ getattr open read lock ioctl }')
> define(`mmap_read_file_perms',`{ getattr open map read ioctl }')
>
> I think that the general expectation would be that mmap_read_file_perms is a
> superset of read_file_perms. Is there any reason why mmap_read_file_perms
> doesn't include lock permission? If not I think we should add it to avoid
> surprises.
You are correct, it should be a proper superset. However, my preference
would be to go the other way and eliminate lock from read_file_perms,
which is what I'm trying to do with mmap_read_file_perms not being a
proper superset.
--
Chris PeBenito
Now that we have just had a release it's a good time for changes that have the potential to break things. So removing lock now would be ok I guess.
On 10 February 2019 1:07:22 am AEDT, Chris PeBenito <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/9/19 5:25 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
>> define(`read_file_perms',`{ getattr open read lock ioctl }')
>> define(`mmap_read_file_perms',`{ getattr open map read ioctl }')
>>
>> I think that the general expectation would be that
>mmap_read_file_perms is a
>> superset of read_file_perms. Is there any reason why
>mmap_read_file_perms
>> doesn't include lock permission? If not I think we should add it to
>avoid
>> surprises.
>
>You are correct, it should be a proper superset. However, my
>preference
>would be to go the other way and eliminate lock from read_file_perms,
>which is what I'm trying to do with mmap_read_file_perms not being a
>proper superset.
--
Sent from my Huawei Mate 9 with K-9 Mail.