linux-kernel - Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:52:37 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 09:38:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
>> It sounds more like AT_NO_ESCAPE ... or AT_BELOW, or something.
>
> I considered AT_ROACH_MOTEL at one point...  Another interesting
> question is whether EXDEV would've been better than ELOOP.
> Opinions?

In support of my homeland, I propose AT_HOTEL_CALIFORNIA.

How about EXDEV for crossing a mountpoint and ELOOP for absolute
symlinks or invalid ..?  (Is there a technical reason why the same AT_
flag should trigger both cases?)

--Andy