On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 22:33, Eric Blake wrote:
> I don't think this is quite correct. target_to_host_bitmask() silently
> ignores unknown bits, and a user that was relying on bit 0x4000 to
> cause an EINVAL will not fail with this change (unless bit 0x4000
> happens to be one of the bits
On 4/24/20 4:47 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
- host_flags = target_to_host_bitmask(arg3, fcntl_flags_tbl);
+ int host_flags = target_to_host_bitmask(arg3, fcntl_flags_tbl);
I don't think this is quite correct. target_to_host_bitmask()
silently ignores unknown bits, and a user that wa
On 24.04.20 23:32, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 4/24/20 3:57 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
>> Drop the extra check in dup3() if anything other than FD_CLOEXEC (aka
>> O_CLOEXEC) was given. Instead simply rely on any error codes returned by
>> the host dup3() syscall.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller
>>
>> di
On 4/24/20 3:57 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Drop the extra check in dup3() if anything other than FD_CLOEXEC (aka
O_CLOEXEC) was given. Instead simply rely on any error codes returned by
the host dup3() syscall.
Signed-off-by: Helge Deller
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c
i
Drop the extra check in dup3() if anything other than FD_CLOEXEC (aka
O_CLOEXEC) was given. Instead simply rely on any error codes returned by
the host dup3() syscall.
Signed-off-by: Helge Deller
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c
index 05f03919ff..ebf0d38321 100644
--- a/l
