On 04/13/16 08:41, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016, at 08:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> It's not possible to read the process umask without also modifying it,
>> which is what umask(2) does. A library cannot read umask safely,
>> especially if the main program might be multithreaded.
>
> I assume you just want to do this from a shared library so you can
> determine whether or not you need to call fchown() after making files
> and the like? If that's the case it'd be good to note it in the commit
> message.
>
> BTW...it might be a good idea to add a flags argument:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/585415/
>
> Did you consider calling this `umask2`, having the initial version only
> support
> retrieving it via a UMASK_GET flag, and lay the groundwork to support
> setting a threadsafe umask with a UMASK_SET_THREAD flag?
>
The comments on that article also list a number of problems with this
approach, related to how undefined flags are handled.
In fact, if it wasn't for this exact problem then umask(-1) would have
been the logical way to deal with this, but because umask(2) is defined
to have an internal & 07777 it becomes infeasible at least in theory.
In practice it might work...
However, see previous discussions about making this available in /proc.
Also, I really think there is something to be said for a O_NOUMASK
option...
-hpa
