[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUpMOX-0=7Pdv_etjzOjZVH4nrtiqCdWYqtM-ECKFrsYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:01:30 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. Will apply and add the stable cc.
>
> Ho humm. Thinking about this some more, I'm starting to wonder. Not
> about this patch per se (open on a newly created file should indeed
> succeed regardless), but about the horrible glibc behavior of screwing
> up the third argument.
>
> If you want to do O_TMPFILE + linkat() (or some eventual future
> flink()), the mode really matters. So this idiotic glibc behavior of
> only forwarding the third argument if O_CREAT is set seems to be a
> bug.
We could bite the bullet and add a tmpfile syscall. /me ducks
>
> Why the hell does glibc think it's a good idea to intersect system
> call semantics? It's not a good idea - it's just stupid in the
> extreme. And in this case it seems to actively breaks things.
Uh, because it's glibc? Or because it's trying not to screw up and on
some system where overrunning va_arg is terrible?
>
> Linus
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists