Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:57:33 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: add fchmodat2 syscall
Message-ID: <20200911065733.GA31579@infradead.org>
References: <20200910142335.GG3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20200910162059.GA18228@infradead.org>
 <20200910163949.GJ3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20200910164234.GA25140@infradead.org>
 <20200910170256.GK3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200910170256.GK3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:02:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> Would you be happy with a pair of patches where the first blocks chmod
> of symlinks in chmod_common and the second adds the syscall with
> flags? I think this is a clearly understandable fix, but it does
> eliminate the ability to *fix* link access modes that have been set to
> ridiculous values (note: I don't think it really matters since the
> modes don't do anything anyway) in the past.

I'd be much happier with that, yes.