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
| ||
|
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sfrench@...ba.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists