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:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:56:41 +0000
From:   David Howells <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:, Stefan Metzmacher <>,
        Aleksa Sarai <>,
        Al Viro <>, Ian Kent <>,
        Miklos Szeredi <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Jann Horn <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Karel Zak <>,,
        Linux API <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        LSM List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE_* flags [ver #18]

Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

> > The whole discussion was triggered by the introduction of a completely
> > new fsinfo() call:
> >
> > Would you propose to have 'at_flags' and 'resolve_flags' passed in here?
> Yes, I think that would be the way to go.

Okay, I can do that.

Any thoughts on which set of flags should override the other?  If we're making
RESOLVE_* flags the new definitive interface, then I feel they should probably
override the AT_* flags where there's a conflict, ie. RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS
should override AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW for example.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists