[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 23:05:59 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags
On 03/30/2017 09:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>>
>> That would be nice, but still won't work as we blindly copy f_flags
>> into F_GETFL, not even masking our internal FMODE_ bits.
>
> Ok, *that* is just silly of us, and we could try to just fix, and even backport.
>
> There's no possible valid use I could see where that should break
> (famous last words - user code does some damn odd things at times).
>
> Of course, that won't fix old kernels that are out there, but then
> neither would your original patch...
>
> Side note: I think you *can* detect the O_ATOMIC support by using
> F_SETFL, because F_SETFL only allows you to change flags that we
> recognize. So somebody who really wants to *guarantee* that O_ATOMIC
> is there and honored even with old kernels could presumable do
> something like
>
> fd = open(..); // *no* O_ATOMIC
> fcnt(fd, F_SETFL, O_ATOMIC);
> if (fcnt(fd, F_GETFL, NULL) & O_ATOMIC)
> // Yay! We actually got it
> else
> // I guess we need to fall back on old behavior
>
> although I agree that that is ridiculously inconvenient and not a
> great thing, and it's worth trying to aim for some better model.
>
Perhaps in that case it is time for an F_GETFL2 an F_GET_REAL_FL
that gives you the nice simple user code Linus wanted for new applications.
and solves forward and backwords for applications and Kernels?
Just my $0.017
Boaz
> Linus
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists