[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1147628.1584032201@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:56:41 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, jlayton@...hat.com,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE_* flags [ver #18]
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > The whole discussion was triggered by the introduction of a completely
> > new fsinfo() call:
> >
> > Would you propose to have 'at_flags' and 'resolve_flags' passed in here?
>
> Yes, I think that would be the way to go.
Okay, I can do that.
Any thoughts on which set of flags should override the other? If we're making
RESOLVE_* flags the new definitive interface, then I feel they should probably
override the AT_* flags where there's a conflict, ie. RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS
should override AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW for example.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists