Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] openat2: new OPENAT2_REGULAR flag support
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: 2026-03-08 17:10:22
Also in:
ceph-devel, gfs2, linux-cifs, linux-fsdevel, linux-kselftest, linux-nfs, lkml, v9fs
On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 4:40 AM Jeff Layton [off-list ref] wrote:
On Sat, 2026-03-07 at 10:56 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 6:09 AM Dorjoy Chowdhury [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
This flag indicates the path should be opened if it's a regular file. This is useful to write secure programs that want to avoid being tricked into opening device nodes with special semantics while thinking they operate on regular files. This is a requested feature from the uapi-group[1].I think this needs a lot more clarification as to what "regular" means. If it's literallyquoted
A corresponding error code EFTYPE has been introduced. For example, if openat2 is called on path /dev/null with OPENAT2_REGULAR in the flag param, it will return -EFTYPE. EFTYPE is already used in BSD systems like FreeBSD, macOS.I think this needs more clarification as to what "regular" means, since S_IFREG may not be sufficient. The UAPI group page says: Use-Case: this would be very useful to write secure programs that want to avoid being tricked into opening device nodes with special semantics while thinking they operate on regular files. This is particularly relevant as many device nodes (or even FIFOs) come with blocking I/O (or even blocking open()!) by default, which is not expected from regular files backed by “fast” disk I/O. Consider implementation of a naive web browser which is pointed to file://dev/zero, not expecting an endless amount of data to read. What about procfs? What about sysfs? What about /proc/self/fd/17 where that fd is a memfd? What about files backed by non-"fast" disk I/O like something on a flaky USB stick or a network mount or FUSE? Are we concerned about blocking open? (open blocks as a matter of course.) Are we concerned about open having strange side effects? Are we concerned about write having strange side effects? Are we concerned about cases where opening the file as root results in elevated privilege beyond merely gaining the ability to write to that specific path on an ordinary filesystem?Above the use-case, it also says: "O_REGULAR (inspired by the existing O_DIRECTORY flag for open()), which opens a file only if it is of type S_IFREG." Since we allow programs to open a directory under /proc or /sys using O_DIRECTORY, I don't think we should do anything different here. To the VFS, all of the examples you gave above are S_IFREG "regular files", even if they are backed by something quite irregular.
That's certainly a valid and consistent way to define this, but is it useful? --Andy