On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:05:45 -0800
Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org> wrote:
Dear Michael,
> I can think of two possibilities here:
>
> 1. Remove the -H, -L, and -P options from chmod, always set r.follow =
> 'H', and call chmod(3) conditional on !S_ISLINK(st->st_mode).
> 2. Keep the -H, -L, and -P options, but use fchmodat(3) instead of
> chmod(3) with AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW depending on r->follow and r->depth.
> If fchmodat fails with EOPNOTSUPP, ignore that and continue.
>
> Does anyone have a strong preference for 2? I'm leaning towards 1
> since it doesn't seem like those options are used commonly.
I have a strong preference for 2 tbh, but it's your discretion as the
maintainer. Only because the other tools "suck" doesn't mean we should
lower our standards. Especially with the H, L and P options we found
many bugs in GNU coreutils, and keeping them in is essential if we
want to claim that we are more or less POSIX compliant.
The use of *at()-functions is generally encouraged, as you also showed
in your recurse-refactoring.
So yeah, tl;dr: I'd keep the flags and then use fchmodat() instead of
chmod().
With best regards
Laslo
Received on Mon Dec 23 2019 - 16:47:59 CET