On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > On 06/09/2019 21:03, James Morris wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > >> The fact that open and openat didn't vet unknown flags is really a bug. > >> > >> Too late to fix it now, of course, and as Aleksa points out, we've > >> worked around that in the past. Now though, we have a new openat2 > >> syscall on the horizon. There's little need to continue these sorts of > >> hacks. > >> > >> New open flags really have no place in the old syscalls, IMO. > > > > Agree here. It's unfortunate but a reality and Linus will reject any such > > changes which break existing userspace. > > Do you mean that adding new flags to open(2) is not possible? > > Does it means that unspecified behaviors are definitely part of the > Linux specification and can't be fixed? This is my understanding. > > As I said, O_MAYEXEC should be ignored if it is not supported by the > kernel, which perfectly fit with the current open(2) flags behavior, and > should also behave the same with openat2(2). The problem here is programs which are already using the value of O_MAYEXEC, which will break. Hence, openat2(2). -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
