[Toybox] Why O_NONBLOCK? No idea. Why not O_PATH|O_NOFOLLOW? Because reasons.

[Rob Landley]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:33 AM, José Bollo <jobol at nonadev.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> The title of this message comes from a line that you wrote in ls.
>
> The mysterious reason is that when applied on FIFO the openat was
> unexpectingly blocking if called without O_NONBLOCK

Sigh. _Another_ thing O_PATH would fix. (I thought it was preventing
automounts from triggering, which again... O_PATH.)

> Please note that the case S_ISSOCK has to be treated in the same way
> that the links, using a path because otherwise, the openat call fails.

Yeah, I checked that in this morning. Lemme know if I flubbed it.

Thanks,

Rob

 1432096101.0