Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200302115239.pcxvej3szmricxzu@wittgenstein>
References: <20200302115239.pcxvej3szmricxzu@wittgenstein> <96563.1582901612@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20200228152427.rv3crd7akwdhta2r@wittgenstein> <87h7z7ngd4.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Florian Weimer <fweimer@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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <848281.1583159228.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:27:08 +0000
Message-ID: <848282.1583159228@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> > 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

That sounds like a potentially significant UAPI change.  What will that break?

David