Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] vfs: Define new syscall umask2 [formerly getumask]

[Florian Weimer]

* H. Peter Anvin:

> I have to say I'm skeptic to the need for umask2() as opposed to
> getumask().

I find the extension with a set-the-thread umask somewhat unlikely.
How would a potential per-thread umask interact with CLONE_FS?
Have a per-thread umask that, when active, overrides the global
one, similar to what uselocale provides?  That seems rather messy,
and I'm not aware of any precedent.