Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:38:43 +1000 From: Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Security problems with access(2)? Message-ID: <nospam-986193523.06150@maxim.gbch.net> In-Reply-To: <20010401232526.A9586@dragon.nuxi.com> of Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:25:26 MST References: <20010401190458.A4991@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010401225435.77053E-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20010401232526.A9586@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" wrote: | On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 11:02:11PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: | > eaccess_file(2) - Using effective credentials, check to see if the | > requested access is permitted on the file or directory identified by the | > provided pathname. | | Why not stick to existing naming practices? | eaccess() | | > eaccess_fd(2) - Using effective credentials, check to see if the | > requested access is permitted on the file or directory associated with | > the provided open file descriptor. | | Nope, faccess(2) (see fstat(2), flock(2), fchdir(2),...) | and feaccess(2) | | > faccess(3) - Using effective credentials, check to see if the requested | > access is permitted on the file or directory associated with the | > provided open file stream. | | What's wrong with faccess(fileno(...)) and feaccess(fileno(...))? My earlier agreement was with the concept; I do agree that this is a better naming scheme. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?nospam-986193523.06150>