On 8/6/23 12:42?AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
On 2023-08-05, Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk 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: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.12+ Fixes: 3a81fd02045c ("io_uring: enable LOOKUP_CACHED path resolution for filename lookups") Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com
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.