Re: [PATCH 30/33] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #11]

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Aug 24, 2018, at 7:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
>> @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ typedef int __bitwise __kernel_rwf_t;
>> 
>> #define FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC                0x00000001
>> 
>> +#define FSPICK_CLOEXEC         0x00000001
>> +#define FSPICK_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW        0x00000002
>> +#define FSPICK_NO_AUTOMOUNT    0x00000004
>> +#define FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH      0x00000008
> 
> This caught my eye:  why aren't we using the AT_ constants?  Adding an
> AT_CLOEXEC sounds less horrible than duplicating all the lookup
> related flags for FSPICK...

For a totally new API, is there any need to support !CLOEXEC?  A caller can safely remove the CLOEXEC bit without races.