linux-kernel - Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4041049.1583506130@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:48:50 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, metze@...ba.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com> wrote:

> Right, but open_tree() doesn't need RESOLVE_ flags (nor can you add them
> without an open_tree2()). Instead you can pass an O_PATH file descriptor
> with AT_EMPTY_PATH which you could've safely resolved with openat2().

Note that openat2() is not a substitute for open_tree(). See the effect of
the OPEN_TREE_CLONE flag.

David