Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200416143532.11743-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <c47459a5-3323-121e-ec66-4a8eb2a8afca@samba.org>
 <CAOssrKe7RNyReAFLoQGBDm79qMdXEubhP5QhG_+UmGZXgeXBkA@mail.gmail.com> <3dce8811-a54e-1f74-c7ed-715b97a4652c@samba.org>
In-Reply-To: <3dce8811-a54e-1f74-c7ed-715b97a4652c@samba.org>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:58:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOssrKcVddL5URQ0Vy79eQOscqTTK115Ro0Eqe8Q9kdkNJspCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: add faccessat2 syscall
To:     Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:23 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 18.04.20 um 21:00 schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 8:36 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Miklos,
> >>
> >>> POSIX defines faccessat() as having a fourth "flags" argument, while the
> >>> linux syscall doesn't have it.  Glibc tries to emulate AT_EACCESS and
> >>> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, but AT_EACCESS emulation is broken.
> >>>
> >>> Add a new faccessat(2) syscall with the added flags argument and implement
> >>> both flags.
> >>>
> >>> The value of AT_EACCESS is defined in glibc headers to be the same as
> >>> AT_REMOVEDIR.  Use this value for the kernel interface as well, together
> >>> with the explanatory comment.
> >>
> >> It would be nice if resolv_flags would also be passed in addition to the
> >> at flags.
> >> See:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/CAHk-=wiaL6zznNtCHKg6+MJuCqDxO=yVfms3qR9A0czjKuSSiA@mail.gmail.com/
> >>
> >> We should avoid expecting yet another syscall in near future.
> >
> > What is the objection against
> >
> > openat(... O_PATH)
> > foobarat(fd, AT_EMPTY_PATH, ...)
>
> openat2(), foobarat(), close() are 3 syscalls vs. just one.

That's not a good argument.  We could have a million specialized
syscalls that all do very useful things.  Except it would be a
nightmare in terms of maintenance...

"do one thing and do it well"

> As we have the new features available, I think it would be
> good to expose them to userspace for all new syscalls, so
> that applications can avoid boiler plate stuff around each syscall
> and get better performance in a world where context switches are not for
> free.

The io-uring guys are working on that problem, AFAIK.

Thanks,
Miklos