[orezraey]

What

fopen and freopen on directories, and the mode strings, measured on a retail PS5 (firmware 13.60) through libSceLibcInternal.sprx from a payload process. The source and console log are in this gist (pfopen).

The debt entry said what the console's filesystems return for a directory stream was unverified. The console:

• opens a directory in a read mode (r, rb, rw), and fread returns its raw directory blocks for /data and /system, or fails with EIO and sets the error indicator for /;
• lets freopen reopen a stream onto a directory in a read mode.

AnyPS5 keeps failing a directory read with EISDIR, since the host's directory blocks are not the console's, and on Windows freopen onto a directory still fails with EACCES; the entry now says both. The other answers already matched and gain tests: EEXIST for wx on an existing file, EINVAL for an unknown or empty mode, rw read as r. EISDIR for a directory in a write or update mode and ENOENT for a missing file were already tested.

Tested

Windows 11, MinGW (winlibs).

• guest_filesystem checks wx, the invalid modes and rw, and passes three runs in a row.
• tools/check_conventions.py passes.
• tools/pr_overlap.py reports only shared files.

Checklist

• Based on current main; no other open PR implements the same functions
• One topic per PR; follow-ups go in a new PR
• No comments in code except technical debt
• Unimplemented paths throw (NotImplemented_nid_no_patch); silent stubs are listed under Silent stubs in their library's technical debt file
• No notes, investigation .md files or images added to the repository (attach them to this PR)
• New third-party code is a submodule built from source
• Generic behaviour, not specific to one title
• Depends on: fix(libc): reopen a closed stream in freopen instead of aborting #9763, fix(libc): open a directory with freopen in a read mode on Windows #10433 (merge order only: they edit the same lines; this PR is refreshed after them)
• Fixes: none
• Unblocks: none
• GPUs tested: n/a
• AI-assisted: yes

[github-actions]

Some comparisons could not be completed because a pull request conflicts with the base branch. Review these shared files manually before concluding that there is no overlap.

Pull request	Shared files not compared
PR 5021	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 6713	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 7081	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 7386	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 7447	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 7648	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 7715	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 8150	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 9371	core/libs/tests/GuestFilesystem.cpp docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 9447	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 9473	core/libs/tests/GuestFilesystem.cpp
PR 9526	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 9929	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 9947	core/libs/tests/GuestFilesystem.cpp
PR 10113	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 10226	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 10319	core/libs/tests/GuestFilesystem.cpp
PR 10324	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 10345	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 10749	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 11270	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 11332	docs/dev/debt/libc.md
PR 11341	docs/dev/debt/libc.md

[oneandonlydean]

@orezraey Please keep the final checklist value to yes, removing the parenthetical suffix.

[orezraey]

The AI-assisted line now reads yes.

[orezraey]

@rooklz @Retr0G28: #9763 and #10433 change the same lines as this PR in docs/dev/debt/libc.md (git merge-tree of both heads over current main conflicts there). I propose they land first; I will then merge main into this branch, keeping both sides' behaviour, and rerun its tests. Depends on now lists them (merge order only).

[babyhuey]

Linux run of this head 85caaefe6d4, merged onto main a7a2eece499 (clean merge, local only), with the selection CI's skipped Linux product job uses: anyps5-build CI image (Ubuntu 24.04, GCC 13, Release, BUILD_TESTING=ON), lavapipe with ANYPS5_REQUIRE_VULKAN=1 GALLIUM_OVERRIDE_CPU_CAPS=avx. The tree was configured fresh after the merge, then select_tests.py select / ninja -f select.ninja selected / --target libs / select_tests.py ctest --timeout 120.

• Selected 354 tests: all 354 pass. No new failures.

AI-assisted: yes (Claude Code)

[oneandonlydean]

@orezraey Please ignore my earlier point about the AI-assisted line; that line is yours to word as you like, so feel free to put the tool name back.