Re: [yocto-patches] [pseudo] [PATCH 0/3] closefrom/close_range: protect every pseudo fd, then drop one

On Tue, 2026-07-28 at 09:14 +0100, Richard Purdie via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> Hi Baban,
>=20
> On Tue, 2026-07-28 at 05:08 +0000, Babanpreet Singh wrote:
> > A gentle ping on this series and the close_range v2 it stacks on
> > (which Richard okayed on-list on 16 Jul).
> >=20
> > I noticed pseudo master has moved since (now ca47829, with the
> > memory-handling and openat2 changes). I've checked that both series
> > still apply cleanly on top of current master, so no rebase is
> > needed.
> > Happy to rebase and resend anyway if that's more convenient.
>=20
> Sorry, we haven't forgotten about this, we even did discuss it
> briefly
> yesterday! Mark has struggled for time and I've been juggling a few
> other issues.
>=20
> There were a few fixes ahead of yours in the queue, I have those
> merged
> as you mentioned. We then have yours and the logging fixes along with
> some tests Mark worked on which are next.
>=20
> I've pushed your changes onto master-next where there were some minor
> conflicts with other changes. I'll run some wider tests on the
> resulting branch.

Further testing showed the problems came back so I think I messed up
the testing somewhere along the way, sorry :/. I'm pretty sure the
close_range() implementation is the point things break so there must be
some subtle issue in that code...

I'd suggest we reorder the patches and get the skip fds and drop the
prefix fd patches merged/queued, then come back to how to get
close_range working. I still thing one common op codepath for both
cases makes the most sense.

Cheers,

Richard