Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
From: Christian Brauner <hidden>
Date: 2020-03-02 12:20:08
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:09:06PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Christian Brauner:quoted
quoted
But that's inconsistent with the rest of the system. And for example, if you make /etc/resolv.conf a symbolic link, a program which uses a new I/O library (with the new interfaces) will not be able to read it.Fair, but I expect that e.g. a C library would simply implement openat() on top of openat2() if the latter is available and thus could simply pass RESOLVE_SYMLINKS so any new I/O library not making use of the syscall directly would simply get the old behavior. For anyone using the syscall directly they need to know about its exact semantics anyway. But again, maybe just having it opt-in is fine.I'm more worried about fancy new libraries which go directly to the new system calls, but set the wrong defaults for a general-purpose open operation. Can we pass RESOLVE_SYMLINKS with O_NOFLLOW, so that we can easily implement open/openat for architectures that provide only the openat2 system call?
You can currently do RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS | O_NOFOLLOW. So I'd expect RESOLVE_SYMLINKS | O_NOFOLLOW would work as well. But from what it looks like having no symlink resolution be opt-in seems more likely.
quoted
quoted
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 278121417a72d87fb29dd8c48801f80821e8f75aRESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS shouldn't be the default, though (whoever is responsible for applying that default). Otherwise system administrators can no longer move around data between different file systems and set symbolic links accordingly.
Ok, maybe then we'll just leave RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS as opt-in.