From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753348AbZH3LMn (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:12:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753302AbZH3LMm (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:12:42 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f195.google.com ([209.85.212.195]:57354 "EHLO mail-vw0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752759AbZH3LMm (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:12:42 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=lxdXkr+TkbGb90zeWv/zbMoSWRFKBfm+4B+kwKoEUuyD8D0m5Suyp6Fhkvalzc/Dg/ 9vZagfoon7oM30MZmwmfo1mD6Q2IOT4gSMvRF/Iqyu49PCNYv14eSpn/WIX9fMtS5oWw ctc2Cl2weD4WebWwSnvMPlvajPI1+CvkTn4IY= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A9285FC.8000606@byu.net> References: <4A9285FC.8000606@byu.net> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:12:42 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5e1471e5ce05cb2c Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] new open flag O_NOSTD From: James Youngman To: Eric Blake Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bug-coreutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > The name proposed in this mail is O_NOSTD (implying that a successful > result will not be any of the standard file descriptors); other ideas > mentioned on the bug-gnulib list were O_SAFER, O_NONSTD, O_NOSTDFD. > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2009-08/msg00358.html > > Thoughts? Mostly yes, I like it. I'd like to explicitly vote against O_SAFER, because there may be (for some systems or in the future) some other way of making open(2) safer. I'd vote positively for O_NOSTDFD or O_NOSTD. James.