[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <888183.1583160603@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:50:03 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?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 <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> I think we settled this and can agree on RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS being the
> right thing to do, i.e. not resolving symlinks will stay opt-in.
> Or is your worry even with the current semantics of openat2()? I don't
> see the issue since O_NOFOLLOW still works with openat2().
Say, for example, my home dir is on a network volume somewhere and /home has a
symlink pointing to it. RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS cannot be used to access a file
inside my homedir if the pathwalk would go through /home/dhowells - this would
affect fsinfo() - so RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS is not a substitute for
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW (O_NOFOLLOW would not come into it).
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists