From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 11 14:17:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08162 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from proxy3.ba.best.com (root@proxy3.ba.best.com [206.184.139.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08151 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:17:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mdean@shellx.best.com) Received: from shellx.best.com (shellx.best.com [206.86.0.11]) by proxy3.ba.best.com (8.8.7/8.8.BEST) with ESMTP id OAA23660 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mdean@localhost) by shellx.best.com (8.8.6/8.8.3) with SMTP id OAA23447 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:16:52 -0700 (PDT) From: mdean To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Is this a bug, or just a feature. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Shouldn't it be an error to call open("/dev/fd0", RD_ONLY|WR_ONLY,0)? I guess if your device doesn't like being read-only and write-only then it should look at oflags for itself? Or should this be caught at the syscall and rejected?