DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com B831168403
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7d1fa79-b479-184e-af7e-b4319490f2a3@gmail.com>
References: <a7d1fa79-b479-184e-af7e-b4319490f2a3@gmail.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, hch@infradead.org
Subject: Re: Unchecked flags in statx(2) [Should be fixed before 4.11-final?]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18424.1492778504.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:41:44 +0100
Message-ID: <18425.1492778504@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 971
Lines: 28

Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I was reading your statx(2) man page, and noticed this text:
> 
>        Do not simply set mask to UINT_MAX as one or more bits may, in the
>        future, be used to specify an extension to the buffer.
> 
> (Here' 'mask' is the fourth argument to statx())
> 
> What is going on here? Why is there  not a check in the code to
> give EINVAL if any flag other than those in STATX_ALL (0x00000fffU)
> is specified? (There is a check that gives EINVAL flags in 
> STATX__RESERVED (0x80000000U), but STATX_ALL != ~STATX__RESERVED.

Yeah, I need to update that.  I sent you the manpage to have a look at before
the patch that added the reservation got merged - possibly before I even wrote
that patch.

> Similarly, there appears to be no check for invalid flags in the
> 'flags' argument of statx(). Why is there also not such a check
> there?

Like this?

	if (mask & STATX__RESERVED)
		return -EINVAL;

David