> On Aug 24, 2018, at 7:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h >> @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t; >> >> #define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC 0x00000001 >> >> +#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC 0x00000001 >> +#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW 0x00000002 >> +#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT 0x00000004 >> +#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH 0x00000008 > > This caught my eye: why aren't we using the AT_ constants? Adding an > AT_CLOEXEC sounds less horrible than duplicating all the lookup > related flags for FSPICK... For a totally new API, is there any need to support !CLOEXEC? A caller can safely remove the CLOEXEC bit without races.
