Re: /proc/pid/fd && anon_inode_fops

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:32:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We are really stuck with the current semantics here - switching to
> > *BSD one would not only mean serious surgery on descriptor handling
> > (it's one of the wartier areas in *BSD VFS, in large part because
> > of magic-open-really-a-dup kludges they have to do), it would change
> > a long-standing userland API that had been there for nearly 20 years
> > _and_ one that tends to be used in corner cases of hell knows how many
> > scripts.
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure we did have the "dup" semantics at one point
> (long ago), and they were really nice (because you could use them to
> see where in the stream the fd was etc). It just fit so horribly badly
> into the VFS semantics that it got changed into the current "new file
> descriptor" one. Afaik, nothing broke.
> 
> So I'm not really sure about the "we're stuck with it" for semantic
> reasons, and it turns out that very few programs/scripts actually use
> /proc/<pid>/fd/<nr> at all (random use of /dev/stdin is likely the
> most common case). But I agree about the "serious surgery on
> descriptor handling" part.

Well...  We are actually in better position for that these days;
right now we have very few instances of ->atomic_open(), so we could
change the calling conventions for it.  It returns 0 or -error and we
could turn that into NULL, ERR_PTR(-error) or a reference to already
opened struct file.  It's not _that_ far to propagate from that point -
atomic_open() <- lookup_open() <- do_last() <- path_openat().  So the amount
of surgery is nowhere near the horrors we used to need (and *BSD actually
does).

We could try that, but I'm really afraid that semantics changes will break
stuff; worse yet, that it'll happen to stuff in dusty corners of random admin
scripts nobody able to debug anymore ;-/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/