[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Unchecked flags in statx(2) [Should be fixed before 4.11-final?]
Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <> wrote:

> I was reading your statx(2) man page, and noticed this text:
> Do not simply set mask to UINT_MAX as one or more bits may, in the
> future, be used to specify an extension to the buffer.
> (Here' 'mask' is the fourth argument to statx())
> What is going on here? Why is there not a check in the code to
> give EINVAL if any flag other than those in STATX_ALL (0x00000fffU)
> is specified? (There is a check that gives EINVAL flags in

Yeah, I need to update that. I sent you the manpage to have a look at before
the patch that added the reservation got merged - possibly before I even wrote
that patch.

> Similarly, there appears to be no check for invalid flags in the
> 'flags' argument of statx(). Why is there also not such a check
> there?

Like this?

if (mask & STATX__RESERVED)
return -EINVAL;


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-21 14:42    [W:0.068 / U:16.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site