From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <1505075168.5111.45.camel@bitron.ch>
Subject: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrg?= Billeter <j@bitron.ch>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:26:08 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Al,

Might it make sense to specify these lookup restrictions when opening
the directory (O_ROOT?) instead of specifying it for each lookup with
AT_* (or supporting both)? This might make it more useful when passing
directory fds between processes that do not use seccomp (where
AT_BENEATH could be enforced).

For my sandboxing use case, I'd be happy with either solution, though.
Is there anything I can do to help move this forward?

Best regards,
Jürg