Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags

[Boaz Harrosh <boaz at plexistor dot com>]

On 03/30/2017 09:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>
>> That would be nice, but still won't work as we blindly copy f_flags
>> into F_GETFL, not even masking our internal FMODE_ bits.
> 
> Ok, *that* is just silly of us, and we could try to just fix, and even backport.
> 
> There's no possible valid use I could see where that should break
> (famous last words - user code does some damn odd things at times).
> 
> Of course, that won't fix old kernels that are out there, but then
> neither would your original patch...
> 
> Side note: I think you *can* detect the O_ATOMIC support by using
> F_SETFL, because F_SETFL only allows you to change flags that we
> recognize. So somebody who really wants to *guarantee* that O_ATOMIC
> is there and honored even with old kernels could presumable do
> something like
> 
>    fd = open(..); // *no* O_ATOMIC
>    fcnt(fd, F_SETFL, O_ATOMIC);
>    if (fcnt(fd, F_GETFL, NULL) & O_ATOMIC)
>         // Yay! We actually got it
>    else
>         // I guess we need to fall back on old behavior
> 
> although I agree that that is ridiculously inconvenient and not a
> great thing, and it's worth trying to aim for some better model.
> 

Perhaps in that case it is time for an F_GETFL2 an F_GET_REAL_FL
that gives you the nice simple user code Linus wanted for new applications.
and solves forward and backwords for applications and Kernels?

Just my $0.017
Boaz

>                     Linus
>