Re: dd new iflag= oflag= flags directory, nolinks

[Phillip Susi]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> No, because "test -d foo && test -r foo" is _two_ invocations of
> "test", not one.  A race condition is therefore possible.  The race
> condition is not possible with dd if=foo iflag=directory count=0.
>
>   

Ok, so this allows you to atomically test if the named object is both a 
directory and is readable, but why bother?  It's a bit silly to worry 
about a race between the two tests when you still have a race between 
the dd-test and whatever it is the script actually does with the 
directory, such as try to list the files in it.  Practically, 
eliminating the one pedantic race condition doesn't solve any problems 
because you've still got a dozen others. 


> Admittedly this usage is unusual.  The main arguments for it are
> (1) "dd" supports all the other O_* flags, so why not O_DIRECTORY? and
> (2) I ran into a situation where I could use O_DIRECTORY.
> (1) is far more important than (2).

The purpose of dd is to transfer data.  Since O_DIRECTORY excludes 
transfering data, its use goes against the grain of dd, and since it 
doesn't actually accomplish anything useful either, I don't think it 
should be done.  It just adds complexity for no good reason.