[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The open() system call in f8 really broken...



On 08/16/2007 04:12 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 08:56:10PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> and the following change stops the error:
>>>
>>> - if ((fd = open(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
>>> + if ((fd = (open)(fname, readonly? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT))) < 0) {
>>>           xlog(L_WARNING, "could not open %s for locking", fname);
>>>           return -1;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> Which does not change the fact I'm using O_CREAT w/out a mode
>>> So what is the point of killing the process???
>>>
>>> Now If I'm not mistaken, its been legal since the 70s to use
>>> O_CREAT without a mode because (depending on the OS) the mode
>>> of parent directory will be used (or something similar)...
>>
>> Sorry ignore the previous email I misunderstood what was going on.
>>
>> You can open a file O_CREAT with neither read or write, you can open a
>> file
>> with O_CREAT|O_WRONLY but not give permissions in the file mode. You must
>> provide the third argument so the abort is right. 
> This is were I disagree because a presidents has been set (for
> a large number of years) that this is *not* an abort-able offense.
> 
> Now if we want to change the rules to make things like this
> an abort-able offense... that's fine... I'm all for cleaning
> up dangerous code... But lets change these rules in a less
> disruptive way...
> 
> Bring down servers, costing people time and money because apps
> that have run for years suddenly abort is just not the right
> way to handle this.. imho..
> 
> Give people a chance to correct their code, with stern warnings,
> and then, in the next release, have the applications abort...
> Why is this such a bad idea?
> 
> Also how is the going to fly in the RHEL world? Alan, your
> a master word smith, I truly do enjoy the way you use your
> words (as long as you don't use them against me of course ;-) ),
> but even you I think would have a hard time selling the reason
> why 90% of Disney's rendering applications just abort
> because we changed the rules (or presidents)...
> 
> Personally I think is going to be major pr nightmare and
> it does not have to be if handled correctly... because
> in the end we are doing the right thing, but we just
> have to do it the right way...

Next disney film will come 5 years l8er :-P

-of


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]