Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was reading your statx(2) man page, and noticed this text:
>
> Do not simply set mask to UINT_MAX as one or more bits may, in the
> future, be used to specify an extension to the buffer.
>
> (Here' 'mask' is the fourth argument to statx())
>
> What is going on here? Why is there not a check in the code to
> give EINVAL if any flag other than those in STATX_ALL (0x00000fffU)
> is specified? (There is a check that gives EINVAL flags in
> STATX__RESERVED (0x80000000U), but STATX_ALL != ~STATX__RESERVED.
Yeah, I need to update that. I sent you the manpage to have a look at before
the patch that added the reservation got merged - possibly before I even wrote
that patch.
> Similarly, there appears to be no check for invalid flags in the
> 'flags' argument of statx(). Why is there also not such a check
> there?
Like this?
if (mask & STATX__RESERVED)
return -EINVAL;
David
