Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:41:11 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] io_uring: correct check for O_TMPFILE | From | Jens Axboe <> |
| |
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.
-- Jens Axboe
| |