From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
metze@samba.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
cyphar@cyphar.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:19:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200302121959.it3iophjavbhtoyp@wittgenstein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8736arnel9.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:09:06PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Christian Brauner:
>
> >> But that's inconsistent with the rest of the system. And for example,
> >> if you make /etc/resolv.conf a symbolic link, a program which uses a new
> >> I/O library (with the new interfaces) will not be able to read it.
> >
> > Fair, but I expect that e.g. a C library would simply implement openat()
> > on top of openat2() if the latter is available and thus could simply
> > pass RESOLVE_SYMLINKS so any new I/O library not making use of the
> > syscall directly would simply get the old behavior. For anyone using the
> > syscall directly they need to know about its exact semantics anyway. But
> > again, maybe just having it opt-in is fine.
>
> I'm more worried about fancy new libraries which go directly to the new
> system calls, but set the wrong defaults for a general-purpose open
> operation.
>
> Can we pass RESOLVE_SYMLINKS with O_NOFLLOW, so that we can easily
> implement open/openat for architectures that provide only the openat2
> system call?
You can currently do RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS | O_NOFOLLOW. So I'd expect
RESOLVE_SYMLINKS | O_NOFOLLOW would work as well. But from what it looks
like having no symlink resolution be opt-in seems more likely.
>
> >> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW only applies to the last pathname component anyway,
> >> so it's relatively little protection.
> >
> > So this is partially why I think it's at least worth considerings: the
> > new RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS flag does block all symlink resolution, not just
> > for the last component in contrast to AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. This is
> > 278121417a72d87fb29dd8c48801f80821e8f75a
>
> RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS shouldn't be the default, though (whoever is
> responsible for applying that default). Otherwise system administrators
> can no longer move around data between different file systems and set
> symbolic links accordingly.
Ok, maybe then we'll just leave RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS as opt-in.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-02 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-28 14:53 Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls? David Howells
2020-02-28 15:24 ` Christian Brauner
2020-02-29 15:26 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-02-29 15:54 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-03-01 16:46 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-01 16:38 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 11:30 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-02 11:52 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 12:05 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 15:10 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 15:36 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-03-02 16:31 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-02 12:19 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2020-03-02 12:35 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 12:42 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-02 12:55 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-05 14:33 ` David Howells
2020-03-05 14:38 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-05 14:43 ` David Howells
[not found] ` <20200305141154.e246swv62rnctite@yavin>
2020-03-05 15:23 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 14:27 ` David Howells
2020-03-02 14:35 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 14:50 ` David Howells
2020-03-02 15:05 ` Christian Brauner
2020-03-02 15:24 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-03-02 16:37 ` David Howells
[not found] ` <20200306140032.tpwfytofaeuazalo@yavin>
2020-03-06 14:48 ` David Howells
2020-03-02 15:10 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-03-02 15:23 ` David Howells
2020-03-02 14:30 ` David Howells
2020-03-02 15:04 ` Aleksa Sarai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200302121959.it3iophjavbhtoyp@wittgenstein \
--to=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=metze@samba.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox