Re: POSIX message queues, libmqueue: mq_open, mq_unlink

From: Alex Riesen
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 18:50:30 EST

Chris Wright, Sat, Apr 17, 2004 00:22:17 +0200:
> > My concern is that the tests are rather pointing that something in
> > kernel is not implemented correctly. _The_ checks in particular.
> > Because if they _are_ implemented correctly, you don't need to patch the
> > functionality in the user space.
> >
> > And if the kernel code does check the incoming arguments correctly,
> > what is the point to check them again? Just to make the point, that
> > passing in not an absolute path is not portable?
> The kernel interface is simple and clean. And in fact, requires no
> slashes else you'll get -EACCES. It's not POSIX, but the library
> interface is.
> We just discussed this yesterday:

now, what's is the check in the library for? BTW, it is returning the
other error code (EINVAL instead of EACCES), just on top of all the
confusion with slashes.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at