[+linux-fsdevel, without the typo this time] On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:30 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:13:51 +0000 > >> Hi folks, >> >> It looks like the value for O_PATH on sparc: >> >> arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h:37:#define O_PATH 0x1000000 >> >> clashes with the arch-independent value for __FMODE_NONOTIFY: >> >> include/linux/fs.h:137:#define FMODE_NONOTIFY ((__force fmode_t)0x1000000) >> include/linux/fs.h:2764:#define __FMODE_NONOTIFY ((__force int) >> FMODE_NONOTIFY) >> >> and they are both in the same numbering space, as indicated by the >> comment at the top of include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h and the use in >> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c:715. >> >> Presumably this could theoretically cause problems (no notifications for >> O_PATH files on SPARC?), so would it be a good idea to renumber >> FMODE_NONOTIFY? (I *think* that value is entirely kernel-internal.) >> >> Given that this has happened before (12ed2e36c98aec6c4155 "fanotify: >> FMODE_NONOTIFY and __O_SYNC in sparc conflict") it would probably >> also be a good idea to add __FMODE_NOTIFY to the uniqueness check in >> fs/fcntl.c:fcntl_init(). >> >> Thoughts? > > I think you will need to change the internal value, to not clash with > the sparc exported one, for sure. Well, I was sort of hoping someone else might volunteer to make the change :-) -- I don't use fanotify (or sparc for that matter), I just happened to notice the clash in passing. But I'm happy to have a go, although I can't test much. It would be good to hear from the fanotify maintainers first, though -- Eric? Thanks, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
