[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200302150459.zu3eo5so66vrji4w@yavin>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 02:04:59 +1100
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
metze@...ba.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
On 2020-03-02, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding open flags, I think the key point for future APIs is to avoid
> > using the set of flags for both control of the operation itself
> > (O_NOFOLLOW/AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, O_NOCTTY) and properaties of the
> > resulting descriptor (O_RDWR, O_SYNC). I expect that doing that would
> > help code that has to re-create an equivalent descriptor. The operation
> > flags are largely irrelevant to that if you can get the descriptor by
> > other means.
>
> It would also be nice to sort out the problem with O_CLOEXEC. That can have a
> different value, depending on the arch - so it excludes at least three bits
> from the O_* flag set.
Not to mention there are (at least?) three or four different values for
_CLOEXEC for different syscalls...
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists