[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8pscpny.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:52:17 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, rth@...ddle.net,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@...il.com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
monstr@...str.eu, ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com,
jhogan@...nel.org, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
deller@....de, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@...c.org, davem@...emloft.net, luto@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, firoz.khan@...aro.org,
stefan@...er.ch, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
christian@...uner.io, hare@...e.com, deepa.kernel@...il.com,
tycho@...ho.ws, kim.phillips@....com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Add a new fchmodat4() syscall, v2
* Palmer Dabbelt:
> This patch set adds fchmodat4(), a new syscall. The actual
> implementation is super simple: essentially it's just the same as
> fchmodat(), but LOOKUP_FOLLOW is conditionally set based on the flags.
> I've attempted to make this match "man 2 fchmodat" as closely as
> possible, which says EINVAL is returned for invalid flags (as opposed to
> ENOTSUPP, which is currently returned by glibc for AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW).
> I have a sketch of a glibc patch that I haven't even compiled yet, but
> seems fairly straight-forward:
What's the status here? We'd really like to see this system call in the
kernel because our emulation in glibc has its problems (especially if
/proc is not mounted).
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists