On 8/6/23 12:42?AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2023-08-05, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 8/5/23 4:48?PM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>>> O_TMPFILE is actually __O_TMPFILE|O_DIRECTORY. This means that the old
>>> check for whether RESOLVE_CACHED can be used would incorrectly think
>>> that O_DIRECTORY could not be used with RESOLVE_CACHED.
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v5.12+
>>> Fixes: 3a81fd02045c ("io_uring: enable LOOKUP_CACHED path resolution for filename lookups")
>>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> io_uring/openclose.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/io_uring/openclose.c b/io_uring/openclose.c
>>> index 10ca57f5bd24..a029c230119f 100644
>>> --- a/io_uring/openclose.c
>>> +++ b/io_uring/openclose.c
>>> @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ static bool io_openat_force_async(struct io_open *open)
>>> {
>>> /*
>>> * Don't bother trying for O_TRUNC, O_CREAT, or O_TMPFILE open,
>>> - * it'll always -EAGAIN
>>> + * it'll always -EAGAIN.
>>
>> Please don't make this change, it just detracts from the actual change.
>> And if we are making changes in there, why not change O_TMPFILE as well
>> since this is what the change is about?
>
> Userspace can't pass just __O_TMPFILE, so to me "__O_TMPFILE open"
> sounds strange. The intention is to detect open(O_TMPFILE), it just so
> happens that the correct check is __O_TMPFILE.
Right, but it's confusing now as the comment refers to O_TMPFILE but
__O_TMPFILE is being used. I'd include a comment in there on why it's
__O_TMPFILE and not O_TMPFILE, that's the interesting bit. As it stands,
you'd read the comment and look at the code and need to figure that on
your own. Hence it deserves a comment.
--
Jens Axboe
