Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] linux-user: Add "safe" parameter to do_guest_openat()

[Richard Henderson]

On 6/6/23 06:27, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> @@ -8518,7 +8522,11 @@ int do_guest_openat(CPUArchState *cpu_env, int dirfd, 
> const char *pathname,
>           return fd;
>       }
>   
> -    return safe_openat(dirfd, path(pathname), flags, mode);
> +    if (safe) {
> +        return safe_openat(dirfd, path(pathname), flags, mode);
> +    } else {
> +        return openat(dirfd, path(pathname), flags, mode);
> +    }
>   }

I'm not keen on this, as it seems like the wrong abstraction.  But I can't immediately 
think of how it could be better structured.

The only concrete objection I have is the change of API, which could be fixed with return 
get_errno(openat(...)).

With that,

Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>


r~