Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, metze@samba.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, cyphar@cyphar.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
References: <96563.1582901612@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
        <20200228152427.rv3crd7akwdhta2r@wittgenstein>
        <87h7z7ngd4.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
        <20200302115239.pcxvej3szmricxzu@wittgenstein>
        <8736arnel9.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
        <20200302121959.it3iophjavbhtoyp@wittgenstein>
        <20200302123510.bm3a2zssohwvkaa4@wittgenstein>
Date:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:42:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20200302123510.bm3a2zssohwvkaa4@wittgenstein> (Christian
        Brauner's message of "Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:35:10 +0100")
Message-ID: <87y2sjlygl.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

* Christian Brauner:

> One difference to openat() is that openat2() doesn't silently ignore
> unknown flags. But I'm not sure that would matter for iplementing
> openat() via openat2() since there are no flags that openat() knows about
> that openat2() doesn't know about afaict. So the only risks would be
> programs that accidently have a bit set that isn't used yet.

Will there be any new flags for openat in the future?  If not, we can
just use a constant mask in an openat2-based implementation of openat.

Thanks,
Florian