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: <20200302151021.x5mm54jtoukg4tdk@yavin>
References: <20200302151021.x5mm54jtoukg4tdk@yavin> <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>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, metze@samba.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, 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Subject: Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?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: <927227.1583162604.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:23:24 +0000
Message-ID: <927228.1583162604@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> wrote:

> My counter-argument is that most people actually want
> RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS (as evidenced by the countless symlink-related
> security bugs -- many of which used O_NOFOLLOW incorrectly), it just
> wasn't available before Linux 5.6.

I would quibble as to whether they actually want this in all situations.
There are some in which the difference in behaviour will conceivably break
things - though that's more the case for things like stat(), statx(), fsinfo()
and getxattr() where you might want to be able to query a specific symlink
than for openat2() where you almost always want to follow it (save O_PATH |
O_NOFOLLOW).

However, if you're okay with me adding, say, RESOLVE_NO_TERMINAL_SYMLINK and
RESOLVE_NO_TERMINAL_AUTOMOUNT, I can use these flags.

I don't want to have to allow both RESOLVE_* and AT_*.

David