From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Aug 28 10: 0:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F162837B43E; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e7SH03N11699; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:00:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Robert Watson Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: procfs_lookup() and jail interaction In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:43:39 EDT." Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:00:03 +0200 Message-ID: <11697.967482003@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message , Robe rt Watson writes: > >So I've largely resolved these concerns -- as a synthetic in-memory file >system, procfs is not using the name cache -- the issue I'm running into >now in procfs is with the open() syscall. Following the p_stuff patches, >procfs_getattrt() and so on all return ENOENT. However, an attempt to >call open(/proc/1, O_CREAT) results in an EISDIR error, instead of EROFS. >I believe this may be a result of that type check happening in vn_open, >above the VFS layer, resulting in procfs_* never seeing the request, and >thereby revealing the presence of the directory. Uhm, isn't a VOP_GETATTR() done to find out what we're fiddling ? How else would it know that it is a directory ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message