lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE_* flags [ver #18]
    Date
    Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

    > > > 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.

    Okay. So what's the equivalent of AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW in RESOLVE_* flag
    terms? RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS is not equivalent, though O_NOFOLLOW is. The
    reason I ask is that RESOLVE_* flags can't be easily extended to non-open
    syscalls that don't take O_* flags without it. Would you prefer that new
    non-open syscalls continue to take AT_* and ignore RESOLVE_* flags? That
    would be fine by me.

    David

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-03-10 08:26    [W:3.958 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site