From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyhH0924xwS4q8sJ=F-HZyoSQZJaQ6cWgTCAj4PjrZt8g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170330182620.GA25251@lst.de>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.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.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-30 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-30 16:33 Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 16:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] fs: " Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 17:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 16:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs: add a VALID_OPEN_FLAGS Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 17:08 ` RFC: reject unknown open flags Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 17:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 18:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 18:45 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2017-03-30 20:06 ` Boaz Harrosh
2017-03-30 19:02 ` Paul Eggert
2017-03-30 19:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-30 19:22 ` Florian Weimer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+55aFyhH0924xwS4q8sJ=F-HZyoSQZJaQ6cWgTCAj4PjrZt8g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).