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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96563.1582901612@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:53:32 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     linux-api@...r.kernel.org
cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, metze@...ba.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

	
I've been told that RESOLVE_* flags, which can be found in linux/openat2.h,
should be used instead of the equivalent AT_* flags for new system calls.  Is
this the case?

If so, should we comment them as being deprecated in the header file?  And
should they be in linux/fcntl.h rather than linux/openat2.h?

Also:

 (*) It should be noted that the RESOLVE_* flags are not a superset of the
     AT_* flags (there's no equivalent of AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT for example).

 (*) It has been suggested that AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW should be the default, but
     only RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS exists.

David

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ