Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: descriptors vs pathnames (was Re: getcwd() and friends.)
Message-ID: <3822@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 12 Apr 89 16:17:38 GMT
References: <811@mtxinu.UUCP> <12625@swan.ulowell.edu> <13550@ncoast.ORG> <4457@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 18

In article <4457@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>, schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:
> By the way, lest things become confused, what Felix Lee and I are
> proposing (at this point) is to add two new flags to open, and some
> new syscalls.  The flags are O_EXEC, which opens for execution (used
> with fexec, fchdir), and O_OPEN, which opens for nothing in particular
> (used with fchmod, fchown).

Why do you need an O_EXEC? I can see it would be desirable to know that
you can exec the file you have O_OPENned, but it's not necessary. It also
complicated the design. Why not have an O_CHOWN (only succeeds if owner or
superuser), O_CHMOD, etc...?

O_OPEN by itself will serve.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.