why is O_TMPFILE multiplexed over open() instead of being a separate syscall? [LWN.net]

From:		Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>
To:		viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org
Subject:		why is O_TMPFILE multiplexed over open() instead of being a separate syscall?
Date:		Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:42:53 -0700
Message-ID:		<20130801084253.GA4727@infradead.org>
Cc:		linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

Sorry for being a bit late to the game, but..

Why is the useful tmpfile functionality multiplexed over open when it
has very different semantics from a normal open?

In addition to the flag problems already discussed to death it also just
leads to splattering of the code in the implementaiton, given that
path_openat branches out really early in path_openat.

What's the problem with a clear single purpose tmpfile() system call?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

(Log in to post comments)

why is O_TMPFILE multiplexed over open() instead of being a separate syscall?

Posted Sep 12, 2013 14:21 UTC (Thu) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]

O_TMPFILE is useless for anonymous storage anyway, since you still need a parent directory the user is allowed to write to (have fun finding that in Android, there is none).