From 7a18f60e4da5a8ee337d127ce954d08e6c71a517 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Kerrisk Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:19:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] openat2.2: Minor tweaks to the text Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk --- man2/openat2.2 | 14 +++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/man2/openat2.2 b/man2/openat2.2 index 7d88e2ffd..20e1ffe10 100644 --- a/man2/openat2.2 +++ b/man2/openat2.2 @@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ Any future extensions to will be implemented as new fields appended to the above structure, with a zero value in a new field resulting in the kernel behaving as though that extension field was not present. -Therefore, users must ensure that they zero-fill this structure on +Therefore, the caller +.I must +zero-fill this structure on initialization. (See the "Extensibility" section of the .B NOTES @@ -204,6 +206,16 @@ end-users. Setting this flag indiscriminately for all uses of .BR openat2 () may result in spurious errors on previously-functional systems. +.\" FIXME I find the "previously-functional systems" in the previous +.\" sentence a little odd (since openat2() ia new sysycall), so I would +.\" like to clarify a little... +.\" Are you referring to the scenario where someone might take an +.\" existing application that uses openat() and replaces the uses +.\" of openat() with openat2()? In which case, is it correct to +.\" understand that you mean that one should not just indiscriminately +.\" add the RESOLVE_NO_XDEV flag to all of the openat2() calls? +.\" If I'm not on the right track, could you point me in the right +.\" direction please. .TP .B RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS Disallow resolution of symbolic links during path resolution.