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 16:05:28 +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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?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: <20200302150528.okjdx2mkluicje4w@wittgenstein>
References: <20200302143546.srzk3rnh4o6s76a7@wittgenstein>
 <20200302115239.pcxvej3szmricxzu@wittgenstein>
 <96563.1582901612@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20200228152427.rv3crd7akwdhta2r@wittgenstein>
 <87h7z7ngd4.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
 <848282.1583159228@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <888183.1583160603@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <888183.1583160603@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 02:50:03PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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().
> 
> Say, for example, my home dir is on a network volume somewhere and /home has a
> symlink pointing to it.  RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS cannot be used to access a file
> inside my homedir if the pathwalk would go through /home/dhowells - this would
> affect fsinfo() - so RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS is not a substitute for
> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW (O_NOFOLLOW would not come into it).

I think we didn't really have this issue/face that question because
openat() never supported AT_SYMLINK_{NO}FOLLOW. Whereas e.g. fsinfo()
does. So in such cases we are back to: either allow both AT_* and
RESOLVE_* flags (imho not the best option) or add (a) new RESOLVE_*
variant(s). It seems we leaned toward the latter so far...

Christian