Re: statx(2) API and documentation
From: Jan Kara
Date: Thu Oct 18 2018 - 03:41:08 EST
On Thu 18-10-18 01:15:13, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:12 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> - STATX_ALL definition is unclear, can this change, or is it fixed?
> > >> If it's the former, than that's a backward compatibility nightmare.
> > >> If it's the latter, then what's the point?
> > >
> > > The value can change over time. It is intended to reflect the current
> > > state of affairs at the time the userspace program and kernel are compiled.
> > > The value sent from userspace lets the kernel know what fields are in
> > > the userspace struct, so it doesn't try to set fields that aren't there.
> > What's the point of a userspace program specifying STATX_ALL? Without
> > a way to programmatically query the interface definition it's useless:
> > there's no way to guess which mask bit corresponds to which field, and
> > what that field represents.
> > And there will be programs out there which specify STATX_ALL without
> > considering that in the future it may become slower as it is now due
> > to a recompile.
> > So what's the point exactly?
> > > The value in the kernel allows masking off new fields from userspace that
> > > it doesn't understand.
> > Okay, but that has nothing to do with the UAPI. Even as an internal
> > flag we should be careful, as it might grow uses which can have
> > similar issues as the userspace one above.
> FYI, I identified a similar anti-pattern in fanotify UAPI when I wanted to
> add new flags and did not want to change the UAPI _ALL_ constants.
> This is how we plan to solve it:
Yeah, after fanotify experience I find foo_ALL constants useless if not
dangerous for userspace. Kernel internal constants like this are IMO
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR