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;
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:35:46 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
Message-ID: <20200302143546.srzk3rnh4o6s76a7@wittgenstein>
References: <20200302115239.pcxvej3szmricxzu@wittgenstein>
 <96563.1582901612@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20200228152427.rv3crd7akwdhta2r@wittgenstein>
 <87h7z7ngd4.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
 <848282.1583159228@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <848282.1583159228@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 02:27:08PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> 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?

I think we settled this and can agree on RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS being the
right thing to do, i.e. not resolving symlinks will stay opt-in.
Or is your worry even with the current semantics of openat2()? I don't
see the issue since O_NOFOLLOW still works with openat2().

Christian