On Aug 24, 2018, at 7:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells [off-list ref] wrote:

--- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h

@@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t;

#define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC                0x00000001

+#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC         0x00000001
+#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW        0x00000002
+#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT    0x00000004
+#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH      0x00000008

This caught my eye:  why aren't we using the AT_ constants?  Adding an
AT_CLOEXEC sounds less horrible than duplicating all the lookup
related flags for FSPICK...

For a totally new API, is there any need to support !CLOEXEC?  A caller can safely remove the CLOEXEC bit without races.