James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:03:35PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote: >> I like the newly-added chdir-safer. However, you need to >> provide a dummy #define O_NOFOLLOW 0 for platforms >> like cygwin which have not yet implemented this feature. > > I haven't looked at the code recently (and don't have time to do this > today), but my first reaction is that this isn't such a good idea.
Look at the code :-) If you see a problem with it, I'd be happy to hear about it. > An additional wrinkle is that at compile time O_NOFOLLOW may be > provided, but the resulting binary might be run on a system lacking > support for O_NOFOLLOW. Thanks, but if people are taking binaries compiled against new Linux or *BSD systems and trying to run them on systems that are old enough to lack O_NOFOLLOW, then won't they have far more to worry about (like header skew, and real functionality lapses) than the mere detail of whether open honors O_NOFOLLOW? However, if some modern system that currently lacks O_NOFOLLOW were to add it, then I could justify using code like what's in findutils' check_nofollow function. BTW, thanks for the suggestion to check the non-O_NOFOLLOW case. I've just fixed the ChangeLog attribution. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
