Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

From	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.
Date	2016-04-18 03:50 +0200
Message-ID	<rp6u6-5tz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rnsyK-1lV-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnvdh-3q8-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/13/16 08:41, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016, at 08:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> 
>> It's not possible to read the process umask without also modifying it,
>> which is what umask(2) does.  A library cannot read umask safely,
>> especially if the main program might be multithreaded.
> 
> I assume you just want to do this from a shared library so you can
> determine whether or not you need to call fchown() after making files
> and the like?  If that's the case it'd be good to note it in the commit
> message.
> 
> BTW...it might be a good idea to add a flags argument:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/585415/
> 
> Did you consider calling this `umask2`, having the initial version only support
> retrieving it via a UMASK_GET flag, and lay the groundwork to support
> setting a threadsafe umask with a UMASK_SET_THREAD flag?
> 

The comments on that article also list a number of problems with this
approach, related to how undefined flags are handled.

In fact, if it wasn't for this exact problem then umask(-1) would have
been the logical way to deal with this, but because umask(2) is defined
to have an internal & 07777 it becomes infeasible at least in theory.
In practice it might work...

However, see previous discussions about making this available in /proc.
 Also, I really think there is something to be said for a O_NOUMASK
option...

	-hpa

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-04-18 03:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2016-04-18 04:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> - 2016-04-18 11:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-04-18 12:10 +0200

csiph-web