Re: [PATCH man-pages v2 2/2] openat2.2: document new openat2(2) syscall

[Aleksa Sarai]

On 2020-03-30, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/30/20 11:20 AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > On 2020-03-30, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hello Aleksa,
> >>
> >> On 2/2/20 4:19 PM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >>> Rather than trying to merge the new syscall documentation into open.2
> >>> (which would probably result in the man-page being incomprehensible),
> >>> instead the new syscall gets its own dedicated page with links between
> >>> open(2) and openat2(2) to avoid duplicating information such as the list
> >>> of O_* flags or common errors.
> >>>
> >>> In addition to describing all of the key flags, information about the
> >>> extensibility design is provided so that users can better understand why
> >>> they need to pass sizeof(struct open_how) and how their programs will
> >>> work across kernels. After some discussions with David Laight, I also
> >>> included explicit instructions to zero the structure to avoid issues
> >>> when recompiling with new headers.>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> I'm just editing this page, and have a question on one piece.
> >>
> >>> +Unlike
> >>> +.BR openat (2),
> >>> +it is an error to provide
> >>> +.BR openat2 ()
> >>> +with a
> >>> +.I mode
> >>> +which contains bits other than
> >>> +.IR 0777 ,
> >>
> >> This piece appears not to be true, both from my reading of the
> >> source code, and from testing (i.e., I wrote a a small program that
> >> successfully called openat2() and created a file that had the
> >> set-UID, set-GID, and sticky bits set).
> >>
> >> Is this a bug in the implementation or a bug in the manual page text?
> > 
> > My bad -- it's a bug in the manual. The actual check (which does work,
> > there are selftests for this) is:
> > 
> > 	if (how->mode & ~S_IALLUGO)
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > But when writing the man page I forgot that S_IALLUGO also includes
> > those bits. Do you want me to send an updated version or would you
> > prefer to clean it up?
> 
> I'll clean it up.
> 
> So, it should say, "bits other than 07777", right?

Yes, that would be correct.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature