* Rich Felker: >> Hmm. The way I read the musl code, the O_PATH descriptor already >> exists. At this point, you can just chmod the O_PATH descriptor, and >> have the kernel report EOPNOTSUPP if the file system does not support >> that. > > Oh, you mean the second one after it's already open? Maybe that's ok.
Yes, that's what I meant. > I was concerned it might follow the link and chmod the target at that > point. In my tests, it works. I think it's also documented behavior for chown on these pseudo-files. I also verified that closing an O_PATH descriptor does not release POSIX advisory locks for the same file. But I'm wondering if there's still something we are missing. Thanks, Florian
