Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 23 March,1998
1003.1b-93 #14
_____________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation Number: XXXX
Topic: sem_open()
Relevant Sections: page 245, 11.2.3.4
(note page ref is to 1003.1-1996)
PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------
From: W. Richard Stevens ( rstevens@kohala.com )
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:27:54 -0600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard
or DIS final text, if applicable):
IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (incorporates 1003.1-1990, 1003.1b-1993, 1003.1c-1995,
1003.1i-1995) (ISO 9945-1:1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):
1
Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
numbers):
page 245, 11.2.3.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
problem):
Under EACCES for the sem_open() function it says "permissions
specified by oflag are defined". But there are no permissions
specified by the oflag argument for this function (e.g., no
O_RDONLY, O_WRONLY, or O_RDWR). It appears some implementations
require read-write access by the callign process to access the
named semaphore, but that is not specified anywhere. Minimally
this decription of the permissions specified by oflag needs to
be changed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation response
------------------------
The standards states that "permissions specified by oflag are defined",
and conforming implementations must conform to this. However, concerns
have been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor.
Rationale
-------------
This appears to be a defect. The sem_open() function has an implied
O_RDWR stuck into its oflags. The requestor is correct that we should
consider changing the wording to not refer to "the permissions in
oflags" but rather to "the appropriate permissions to access the
semaphore".
Forwarded to Interpretations group: Feb 18 1998
Proposed Resolution: Mar 5 1998
Finalised: Mar 22 1998