This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst dot de>
- Cc: Alexander Viro <viro at zeniv dot linux dot org dot uk>, Linux API <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20170330163327.23920-1-hch@lst.de> <CA+55aFw92r4h4sNW41ifs31ixdZpNmaxY23KthB9R-LXNm7p-w@mail.gmail.com> <20170330172159.GA24139@lst.de>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> Failure atomic file updates, aka O_ATOMIC:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/573092/
>
> Currently the way to probe for it is a new ioctl to check if atomicy
> is offered. This should work, but it's rather fragile..
So quite frankly, I'd much rather see that people who really want to
check would instead just
fd = open(... O_ATOMIC);
if (fd < 0)
.. regular error handling ..
/* Did we actually get O_ATOMIC? */
if (!(O_ATOMIC & fnctl(fd, F_GETFL, NULL)))
.. warn about lack of O_ATOMIC ..
because I suspect that you will find users that might *want* atomic
behavior, but in the absence of atomicity guarantees will want to
still be able to do IO.
The above kind of model seems much more straightforward, and has no
backwards/forwards compatibility issues I can see.
I'm assuming you'd also possible want to be able to use F_SETFL to set
O_ATOMIC after the fact (independently of the open - I could see tools
like "dd" growing an atomic flag and setting it on stdout), so the
F_GETFL interface seems natural for that reason too.
Linus