[Ocfs2-devel] Invalid file rights

[Kurt Hackel]

Yeah I think this is why libc provides...
       int open(const char *pathname, int flags);
       int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode);

That "overloaded" open with the mode is only used for the O_CREAT case. 

Thanks!
-kurt

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 09:51:20AM +0800, Chen, Yukun wrote:
> Yeah. You are right.
> 
> I take it for granted that a file will be granted some default rights for its owner, such as read/write, when it is created with open(...,...|O_CREAT) .
> I traced the source code of ocfs2 and found the kernel return a mode 8000 really that means nobody can access the file. Also, I checked it with ext3 filesystem and got the same results.
> 
> So, I think it is nature and it is not a bug yet.
> Thanx.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Fasheh [mailto:mark.fasheh at oracle.com] 
> Sent: 2004??8??4?? 2:49
> To: Chen, Yukun
> Cc: ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Invalid file rights
> 
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:25:42PM +0800, Chen, Yukun wrote:
> > Hi All
> > 
> > I find a file rights bug on kernel 2.4 with svn 1313 code. Steps to
> > duplicate
> > 
> > Being root, create a file in a ocfs2 partition with the sentence below
> > 
> >  open(filename, O_CREAT | O_RDWR )
> > 
> > Then the file will be created with a right 000 --- nobody can write/read
> > it at all. 
> Right, and we get the mode from the kernel for this, right? Is there some
> policy which we're missing? In ocfs_mknod_locked we do "fe->i_mode = mode;"
> so it's definitely being set on disk. later on we also do "inode->i_mode =
> mode;".
> 
> > But, if I use "touch filename" , the file will be created with a right
> > of 644.
> Well, that'd be because:
> 
> [mfasheh at expo ocfs2]$ strace touch file
> <snip>
> open("file", O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_CREAT|O_NOCTTY|O_LARGEFILE, 0666) = 3
> <snip>
> 
> So that's "touch" setting the mode there.
>  
> > Any ideas on it? (a bug # 113 has been reported to oss.oracle.com
> > bugzilla)
> So the "touch" case is obvious, but I'm not sure that the 1st one is a bug
> either... If it is, please explain why.
> 	--Mark
> 
> --
> Mark Fasheh
> Software Developer, Oracle Corp
> mark.fasheh at oracle.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel