Return-Path: Received: from swift.blarg.de (swift.blarg.de [138.201.185.127]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388ED7F5A5 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by swift.blarg.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E81C340792; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:19:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:19:39 +0200 From: Max Kellermann To: Seebs Message-ID: <20190801161939.GA3850@swift.blarg.de> Mail-Followup-To: Seebs , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <20190801160206.24078-1-max+openembedded@blarg.de> <20190801111701.367588b2@seebsdell> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190801111701.367588b2@seebsdell> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH pseudo] ports/linux: wrap faccessat() X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 16:19:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On 2019/08/01 18:17, Seebs wrote: > > + rc = real___fxstatat64(_STAT_VER, dirfd, path, &buf, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW); > > We should probably be using flags here, not AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. > Or possibly (flags & AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW). Otherwise, we'll get the wrong > results if called with flags not including AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. Thanks, I missed that there was indeed a "flags" parameter which can be forwarded. Will resend the patch.