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  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, 2 Mar 2020 13:55:31 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <>
To:     Florian Weimer <>
Cc:     David Howells <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:42:50PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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.

>From past experiences with other syscalls I would expect that any new
features would only be available through openat2().
The way I see it in general is that a revised version of a syscall
basically deprecates the old syscall _wrt to new features_, i.e. new
features will only be available through the revised version unless there
are very strong reasons to also allow it in the old version (security
bug or whatever).
(But I don't want to be presumptuous here and pretend I can make any
definiteve statement. Ultimately it's up to the community, I guess. :))


Powered by blists - more mailing lists