[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?
Christian Brauner <> wrote:

> > 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
> 278121417a72d87fb29dd8c48801f80821e8f75a

That sounds like a potentially significant UAPI change. What will that break?


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-02 15:28    [W:0.156 / U:2.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site