On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:10 AM Samuel Thibault <[email protected]> wrote: > Applied, thanks!
Thank you -- but I see you changed it to say "fds[j] | fd_flags". For one thing it would be nice of you to indicate that this was your change, not mine, because as things are it looks like I wrote that, but I didn't. Linux docs (I was about to write "kernel docs", heh) suggest this pattern: > it is recommended that you add a line between the last > Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating the nature of your > changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it seems like > prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all enclosed > in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that you > are responsible for last-minute changes. Example : > > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <[email protected]> > [[email protected]: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] > Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <[email protected]> But on the technical side of things, I don't think we should take whatever integer arrives in the message and use it as flags. We never check it for sanity; who knows what might be there; the fd management subsystem is not generally written with the assumption that 'flags' might be attacker-controlled/malicious. I don't see how anything actually bad could happen in this case, but it could specify O_CLOEXEC and/or O_IGNORE_CTTY when we don't want them, for instance. Sergey
