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: [email protected] # v5.12+
Fixes: 3a81fd02045c ("io_uring: enable LOOKUP_CACHED path resolution for filename lookups")
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
---
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.
*/
- return open->how.flags & (O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | O_TMPFILE);
+ return open->how.flags & (O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | __O_TMPFILE);
}
static int __io_openat_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
--
2.41.0
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: [email protected] # v5.12+
> Fixes: 3a81fd02045c ("io_uring: enable LOOKUP_CACHED path resolution for filename lookups")
> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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?
--
Jens Axboe
On 2023-08-05, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] # v5.12+
> > Fixes: 3a81fd02045c ("io_uring: enable LOOKUP_CACHED path resolution for filename lookups")
> > Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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.
But I can change it if you prefer.
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
On 8/6/23 12:42?AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2023-08-05, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] # v5.12+
>>> Fixes: 3a81fd02045c ("io_uring: enable LOOKUP_CACHED path resolution for filename lookups")
>>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> 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