linux-kernel - Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT

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:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:42:50 +0100
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

* Christian Brauner:

> One difference to openat() is that openat2() doesn't silently ignore
> unknown flags. But I'm not sure that would matter for iplementing
> openat() via openat2() since there are no flags that openat() knows about
> that openat2() doesn't know about afaict. So the only risks would be
> programs that accidently have a bit set that isn't used yet.

Will there be any new flags for openat in the future?  If not, we can
just use a constant mask in an openat2-based implementation of openat.

Thanks,
Florian