4 ms·
This is by design and a obvious implication from the inode structure. Bash, for example, relies on that for process substitution. On the other side, systemd-tm
by blueflow 2y ago
This is by design and a obvious implication from the inode structure. Bash, for example, relies on that for process substitution.
On the other side, systemd-tmpfiles used to recurse into '..' when unlinking, wiping your system. So i'm not surprised they didn't get the open() calls right.
- PhilipRoman 2y ago>obvious implication from the inode structure I don't quite follow. In fact, at least on Linux, opening a FIFO with O_RDWR (which POSIX leaves undefined) will not block so it can work. IMO blocking for opening as writable can be justified, but I don't see why opening for readonly has to. I'm sure there is some justification for it like SIGFPE or distinguishing empty data from no data, but the result still seems fishy. >systemd-tmpfiles used to recurse into '..' when unlinking ok this one is just hilarious
- oguz-ismail 2y ago> I don't see why opening for readonly has to. If it didn't you'd have no way of telling if there's anyone at the write end of the pipe. Isn't it obvious?