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;
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: <87h7z7ngd4.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
References: <87h7z7ngd4.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <96563.1582901612@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20200228152427.rv3crd7akwdhta2r@wittgenstein>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <859018.1583159423.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:30:23 +0000
Message-ID: <859019.1583159423@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:

> Regarding open flags, I think the key point for future APIs is to avoid
> using the set of flags for both control of the operation itself
> (O_NOFOLLOW/AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, O_NOCTTY) and properaties of the
> resulting descriptor (O_RDWR, O_SYNC).  I expect that doing that would
> help code that has to re-create an equivalent descriptor.  The operation
> flags are largely irrelevant to that if you can get the descriptor by
> other means.

It would also be nice to sort out the problem with O_CLOEXEC.  That can have a
different value, depending on the arch - so it excludes at least three bits
from the O_* flag set.

David