On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 12:41:16AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2020-03-05, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Do we want to do this? Or should we duplicate the RESOLVE_* flags to AT_* > > flags so that existing *at() syscalls can make use of them? > > > > David > > --- > > commit 448731bf3b29f2b1f7c969d7efe1f0673ae13b5e > > Author: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu Mar 5 17:40:02 2020 +0000 > > > > Mark AT_* flags as deprecated and add missing RESOLVE_ flags > > > > It has been suggested that new path-using system calls should use RESOLVE_* > > flags instead of AT_* flags, but the RESOLVE_* flag functions are not a > > superset of the AT_* flag functions. So formalise this by: > > > > (1) In linux/fcntl.h, add a comment noting that the AT_* flags are > > deprecated for new system calls and that RESOLVE_* flags should be > > used instead. > > I wouldn't say it that way -- the RESOLVE_* flags should be used by > syscalls *where it makes sense to change the path resolution rules*. If > it makes more sense for them to have their own flag set, they should > arguably make a separate one (like renameat2 did -- though renameat2 can > never take AT_EMPTY_PATH because it isn't sufficiently extensible). Yeah, we should clearly state that they are not a replacement for _all_ the AT_* flags. I think it makes sense to think of RESOLVE_* flags as a superset of the path-resolution portions of AT_* flags. Maybe in openat2.h: /* * Flags available to syscalls wanting to modify how paths are resolved. * RESOLVE_* flags are intended to as a superset of those AT_* flags * concerned with path resolution. All syscalls modifying their path * resolution behavior are expected to use RESOLVE_* flags. */ Something like this (Native speaker can probably do this way nicer.)?
