Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 01:11:54AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:

On 2020-03-02, Florian Weimer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* Christian Brauner:

quoted

One difference to openat() is that openat2() doesn't silently ignore
unknown flags. But I'm not sure that would matter for iplementing
openat() via openat2() since there are no flags that openat() knows about
that openat2() doesn't know about afaict. So the only risks would be
programs that accidently have a bit set that isn't used yet.

Will there be any new flags for openat in the future?  If not, we can
just use a constant mask in an openat2-based implementation of openat.

There is one being proposed at the moment as part of the compressed
read/write work[1].

That work predates openat2() having been merged so there's an argument
to be made that it should be on top of openat2() imho. But that assumes
people agree with
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/3607683.1583419401@warthog.procyon.org.uk/T/#m58c1b6c2697e72e7b42bdbea248178ed31b7d787 (local)
and I haven't heard anything in either direction...

Christian