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.hender...@linaro.org> r~
