On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:42:50PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Christian Brauner: > > > One difference to openat() is that openat2() doesn't silently ignore > > unknown flags. But I'm not sure that would matter for iplementing > > openat() via openat2() since there are no flags that openat() knows about > > that openat2() doesn't know about afaict. So the only risks would be > > programs that accidently have a bit set that isn't used yet. > > Will there be any new flags for openat in the future? If not, we can > just use a constant mask in an openat2-based implementation of openat. >From past experiences with other syscalls I would expect that any new features would only be available through openat2(). The way I see it in general is that a revised version of a syscall basically deprecates the old syscall _wrt to new features_, i.e. new features will only be available through the revised version unless there are very strong reasons to also allow it in the old version (security bug or whatever). (But I don't want to be presumptuous here and pretend I can make any definiteve statement. Ultimately it's up to the community, I guess. :)) Christian
