From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 24 10:48:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07001 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:48:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.5.85]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA06985 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:48:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA23876 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:48:15 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd023853; Fri Oct 24 10:48:11 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA14447 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:48:11 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199710241748.KAA14447@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()? (Big time bug) To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:48:10 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <19971024002450.UZ51487@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Oct 24, 97 00:24:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > No, the user open() should return error for somebody trying to open for > > not read and not write. > > It does (now). Why the h*ck are you both still arguing about it? For > me (being in MET DST timezone), it's already a matter of yesterday... Because I think the "fix" should be backed out because the side effect is useful, and he thinks it shouldn't because he doesn't want to have to code device drivers with security policy in mind. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.