[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170430043822.GE27790@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:38:22 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: 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 12:25:04AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 04:17:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > New AT_... flag - AT_NO_JUMPS
> > >
> > > Semantics: pathname resolution must not involve
> > > * traversals of absolute symlinks
> > > * traversals of procfs-style symlinks
> > > * traversals of mountpoints (including bindings, referrals, etc.)
> > > * traversal of .. in the starting point of pathname resolution.
> >
> > Can you clarify this last one? I assume that ".." will be rejected,
> > but what about "a/../.."? How about "b" if b is a symlink to ".."?
> > How about "a/b" if a is a directory and b is a symlink to "../.."?
>
> All of those will be rejected - in each of those cases pathname traversal
> leads back into the starting point with .. being the next component to
> handle.
It sounds more like AT_NO_ESCAPE ... or AT_BELOW, or something. Perhaps
some example usages in the changelog?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists