Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:00:03 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: procfs_lookup() and jail interaction Message-ID: <11697.967482003@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:43:39 EDT." <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000828124049.84062K-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000828124049.84062K-100000@fledge.watson.org>, Robe rt Watson writes: > >So I've largely resolved these concerns -- as a synthetic in-memory file >system, procfs is not using the name cache -- the issue I'm running into >now in procfs is with the open() syscall. Following the p_stuff patches, >procfs_getattrt() and so on all return ENOENT. However, an attempt to >call open(/proc/1, O_CREAT) results in an EISDIR error, instead of EROFS. >I believe this may be a result of that type check happening in vn_open, >above the VFS layer, resulting in procfs_* never seeing the request, and >thereby revealing the presence of the directory. Uhm, isn't a VOP_GETATTR() done to find out what we're fiddling ? How else would it know that it is a directory ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11697.967482003>