On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:32:16AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > ended up calling user_path_at() with empty pathname and nothing like LOOKUP_EMPTY > > in lookup_flags. Which bails out with -ENOENT, since getname() in there does > > so. My variant bails out with -EBADF and I'd argue that neither is correct. > > > > Not sure what's the sane solution here, need to think for a while... > > Fwiw, in the other thread we concluded to just not care about AT_FDCWD with "". > And so far I agree with that. Subject:?
