On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 01:11:54AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2020-03-02, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > There is one being proposed at the moment as part of the compressed > read/write work[1]. That work predates openat2() having been merged so there's an argument to be made that it should be on top of openat2() imho. But that assumes people agree with https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/3607683.1583419401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m58c1b6c2697e72e7b42bdbea248178ed31b7d787 and I haven't heard anything in either direction... Christian
