On 2019-07-19, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 12:57:35AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > [...] > > +/** > > + * Arguments for how openat2(2) should open the target path. If @extra is zero, > > + * then openat2(2) is identical to openat(2). > > + * > > + * @flags: O_* flags (unknown flags ignored). > > What was the rationale for implementing this semantics? > Ignoring unknown flags makes potential extension of this new interface > problematic. This has bitten us many times already, so ... I am mirroring the semantics of open(2) and openat(2). To be clear, I am in favour of doing it -- and it would definitely be possible to implement it with -EINVAL (you would just mask off ~VALID_OPEN_FLAGS for the older syscalls). But Linus' response to my point about (the lack of) -EINVAL for unknown open(2) flags gave me the impression he would be against this idea (though I might be misunderstanding the point he was making). -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
