* Christian Brauner:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 11:40:55PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
quoted
In <linux/mount.h>, we have this:
#define OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC /* Close the file on execve() */
This causes a few pain points for us to on the glibc side when we mirror
this into <linux/mount.h> becuse O_CLOEXEC is defined in <fcntl.h>,
which is one of the headers that's completely incompatible with the UAPI
headers.
The reason why this is painful is because O_CLOEXEC has at least three
different values across architectures: 0x80000, 0x200000, 0x400000
Even for the UAPI this isn't ideal because it effectively burns three
open_tree flags, unless the flags are made architecture-specific, too.
I think that just got cargo-culted... A long time ago some API define as
O_CLOEXEC and now a lot of APIs have done the same.
Yes, it looks like inotify is in the same boat.
I'm pretty sure we can't change that now but we can document that this
shouldn't be ifdefed and instead be a separate per-syscall bit. But I
think that's the best we can do right now.
Maybe add something like this as a safety measure, to ensure that the
flags don't overlap?
diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
index c58674a20cad..5bbfd379ec44 100644
--- a/fs/namespace.c
+++ b/fs/namespace.c
@@ -3069,6 +3069,9 @@ static struct file *vfs_open_tree(int dfd, const char __user *filename, unsigned
bool detached = flags & OPEN_TREE_CLONE;
BUILD_BUG_ON(OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC != O_CLOEXEC);
+ BUILD_BUG_IN(!(O_CLOEXEC & OPEN_TREE_CLONE));
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!((AT_EMPTY_PATH | AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT | AT_RECURSIVE | AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) &
+ (O_CLOEXEC | OPEN_TREE_CLONE)));
if (flags & ~(AT_EMPTY_PATH | AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT | AT_RECURSIVE |
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW | OPEN_TREE_CLONE |
@@ -3100,7 +3103,7 @@ static struct file *vfs_open_tree(int dfd, const char __user *filename, unsigned
SYSCALL_DEFINE3(open_tree, int, dfd, const char __user *, filename, unsigned, flags)
{
- return FD_ADD(flags, vfs_open_tree(dfd, filename, flags));
+ return FD_ADD(flags & O_CLOEXEC, vfs_open_tree(dfd, filename, flags));
}
/*
(Completely untested.)
Passing the mix of flags to FD_ADD isn't really future-proof if FD_ADD
ever recognizes more than just O_CLOEXEC.
Thanks,
Florian