Xref: utzoo comp.unix.programmer:1233 alt.sources.d:1566
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: -x implementations
Message-ID: <6999:Mar703:28:1091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 91 03:28:10 GMT
References: <19017@rpp386.cactus.org> <6124@segue.segue.com> <668288533.3106@mindcraft.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 14
X-Right-Newsgroups: comp.unix.futures

In article <668288533.3106@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes:
> There is no system interface that simply and reliably provides the
> desired information.  The advice of the 1003.1 committee is not to try
> to guess whether access would be granted based on the permission bits,
> but to actually try the function or utility and see what happens.

One perfectly good solution would be to have an O_EXEC mode for open(),
and allow fexec() upon files open for O_EXEC. This would not break
anything, it would solve the race conditions and inaccuracies that
plague access(), and it would fit comfortably into current systems.

Too easy, huh?

---Dan