[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EC2075E7-CB9B-4DC0-B041-1EA1100D6748@dilger.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:18:10 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: demiobenour@...il.com
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Expose O_PATHSTATIC to userspace
On Feb 12, 2019, at 7:54 AM, demiobenour@...il.com wrote:
>
> From: "Demi M. Obenour" <demiobenour@...il.com>
>
> This adds the file open flag O_PATHSTATIC, which ensures that symbolic
> links are *never* followed, even in path components other than the last.
> This is distinct from O_NOFOLLOW, which only prevents symlinks in the
> *last* component from being followed.
>
> This is useful for avoiding race conditions in userspace code that
> should expose only a subset of the filesystem to clients. This includes
> FTP and SFTP servers, QEMU, and others.
>
> Currently, O_NOFOLLOW must be set if O_PATHSTATIC is set. Otherwise,
> open() fails with -EINVAL.
I don't want to bikeshed (discard suggestion if you disagree), but why not
name the flag "O_NEVER_FOLLOW" so that users can see it is also related to
"O_NOFOLLOW"? Otherwise it seems like they are two completely different
things from looking at the names, when in fact they are closely related.
Cheers, Andreas
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists