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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158376244589.344135.12925590041630631412.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <158376245699.344135.7522994074747336376.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20200310005549.adrn3yf4mbljc5f6@yavin>
In-Reply-To: <20200310005549.adrn3yf4mbljc5f6@yavin>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:14:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiEBNFJ0_riJnpuUXTO7+_HByVo-R3pGoB_84qv3LzHxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE_* flags [ver #18]
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>,
        Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>, jlayton@redhat.com,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:56 PM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-03-09, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> > This is necessary for fsinfo() to use RESOLVE_* flags instead of AT_* flags
> > if the latter are to be considered deprecated for new system calls.
> >
> > Also make openat2() handle RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS.

No, please let's not do this.

We have O_NOFOLLOW, and we can't get rid of it.

So adding RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS isn't a cleanup. It's just
extra complexity for absolutely zero gain.


> After thinking about what Christian said some more, I reckon we
> shouldn't support both O_NOFOLLOW and RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS. But
> that means we'll need to cherry-pick this patch and get it into mainline
> before v5.6.

No.

It simply means that we shouldn't have RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS at all.

Adding that flag is a mistake. It causes problems like this, where
subtlenly people say "what if both flags are set".

Just don't do it.

There's no way in hell we can ever get rid of O_NOFOLLOW anyway, since
people will continue to use plain open() and openat().

So adding RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS is entirely redundant.

Don't deprecate the old flags that are going to always stay around,
don't add stupid new flags that add no value.

It's that easy.

              Linus