On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:06:34PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > > >> > @@ -186,12 +187,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(timerfd_create, int, clo > > >> > BUILD_BUG_ON(TFD_CLOEXEC != O_CLOEXEC); > > >> > BUILD_BUG_ON(TFD_NONBLOCK != O_NONBLOCK); > > >> > > > >> > - if (flags & ~(TFD_CLOEXEC | TFD_NONBLOCK)) > > >> > + if ((flags & ~TFD_FLAGS_SET) || > > >> > + invalid_clockid(clockid)) > > >> > return -EINVAL; > > >> > > >> Oh! Does this mean that in 2.6.2[789] it wasn't possible to use > > >> TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME? > > > > > > No, sorry, my fault. Patch is wrong. In "create" ATM we accept only > > > FCNTL-like flags. In "settime" we get TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME (that needs a > > > check too for EINVAL). > > > > That last piece should be a separate patch, that also gets pushed back > > into -stable. Do you agree? > > Hmm, it's a check for extra bits that do not cause any harm. Dunno if it > fits -stable requirements. You should ask Greg. If it fixes a bug, it would go into -stable. Does this? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
