linux-kernel - Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT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

Message-ID: <875zfi989k.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:38:31 +0100
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        metze@...ba.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
        sfrench@...ba.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

* David Howells:

> Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> One thing we might want to look at is implementing support for
> lock-on-open/create and sharing modes in openat2().  Various network
> filesystems support this.  Wine, CIFS and Samba particularly might be
> interested in this.

But will those be O_ flags that need to be passed to openat?

Ignoring locking requests on older kernels because of the openat flag
handling seems problematic.

Thanks,
Florian