hi sergei,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
> No convincing reason.
> I felt like O_NOFOLLOW is not as universally portable as O_EXCL.
> That's why we also have in my_global.h (?):
thanks for following up on this. i'll try building a new version with
a modified v
Hi!
On Apr 29, sean finney wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 12:26:42AM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
> > + O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_NOFOLLOW,MYF(MY_WME))) < 0)
> ^^^ i think that's where the problem is.
>
> is there any real risk in taking out the O_EXCL?
>
hi guys,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 12:26:42AM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
> + O_RDWR | O_EXCL | O_NOFOLLOW,MYF(MY_WME))) < 0)
^^^ i think that's where the problem is.
is there any real risk in taking out the O_EXCL?
the O_NOFOLLOW should protect against any symlink
3 matches
Mail list logo
