From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [62.89.141.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77ABC20E022 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729087255; cv=none; b=g/IZb2NxTmSzW81SpiDv7+XOds33k0JpOLguUPCvUN92oHVai3CJhPf5j7RW82BGR0c1yx5QrQkbCAisRM1/0EsSNksnX5LqbEuvP2fh9kqiPQ2wCQaWdiYynVBTfWP2RZtfcHuXovfgYP1c3Xpj3LJP9Z/wizYxeuISyJmmWbY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729087255; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8fzIRUzMEp/M+4uVyX7kT2prkftlXCuQURP4L42YSj8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=txCLUhkuAtdnfKxi+CfJUNhPlDqfa8J1XoP2oioibxImQHcMCCn5eGa0YB9b08fnEsfaGAQFKq9tkPUMFeHO/lWZCLY/8FYs0JWEdMuIyXMjqbRVhbwvCPCm1wnzM9QRmIdzntSAHueZB5IYjD2wQtsbLKuXsTvHRiSmDdR3Gig= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b=rA/Z3cyt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b="rA/Z3cyt" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.org.uk; s=zeniv-20220401; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=oHL/sz5V4gpbg5Gf34J9UpVzaHkAp+WGrI3naf47XzE=; b=rA/Z3cytleFPebyiVbITsab/ei GJ7PJkSpcBrRoGPgq5kOcxpp+h9xQ2w+GfDw9qwvgCxTm1LGapUK8iXlrBsf+rbGgz6JgEjDErLR6 7OVfkX31d+7l5IlNukI/FpgQGo0/nq0JFmgrUvaDg1fosVdVbVy59VQpQ1jWvUB3skIongD1E4+9K NC2wdWADdG02Oe9m42sW1o4zwGUMsMYoGwHzIZPUg29QiYoU3X/rhDxwZeRAiaD2nDo09TekH/Kr0 Hw4ZOS8ztlqk+pESiOFSjD8CswLFx1ldPqAYlYsOVk1QbFgZ6pL3D9OnEhJzWwVIWUybZqd2ET+UZ fwG+WJMA==; Received: from viro by zeniv.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1t14a2-00000004QGq-3X8h; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:00:50 +0000 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:00:50 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Christian Brauner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] getname_maybe_null() - the third variant of pathname copy-in Message-ID: <20241016140050.GI4017910@ZenIV> References: <20241009040316.GY4017910@ZenIV> <20241015-falter-zuziehen-30594fd1e1c0@brauner> <20241016050908.GH4017910@ZenIV> <20241016-reingehen-glanz-809bd92bf4ab@brauner> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241016-reingehen-glanz-809bd92bf4ab@brauner> Sender: Al Viro On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:32:16AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > ended up calling user_path_at() with empty pathname and nothing like LOOKUP_EMPTY > > in lookup_flags. Which bails out with -ENOENT, since getname() in there does > > so. My variant bails out with -EBADF and I'd argue that neither is correct. > > > > Not sure what's the sane solution here, need to think for a while... > > Fwiw, in the other thread we concluded to just not care about AT_FDCWD with "". > And so far I agree with that. Subject:?