On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > New AT_... flag - AT_NO_JUMPS > > Semantics: pathname resolution must not involve > * traversals of absolute symlinks > * traversals of procfs-style symlinks > * traversals of mountpoints (including bindings, referrals, etc.) > * traversal of .. in the starting point of pathname resolution. > > All of those lead to failure with -ELOOP. Relative symlinks are fine, > as long as their resolution does not end up stepping into the conditions > above. > > It guarantees that result of successful pathname resolution will be on the > same filesystem as its starting point and within the subtree rooted at > the starting point. > > Right now I have it hooked only for fstatat() and friends; it could be > easily extended to any ...at() syscalls. Objections? Oh, nice! It looks like this is somewhat similar to the old O_BENEATH proposal, but because the intentions behind the proposals are different (application sandboxing versus permitting an application to restrict its own filesystem accesses), the semantics differ: AT_NO_JUMPS doesn't prevent starting the path with "/", but does prevent mountpoint traversal. Is that correct? I think that, as Andy mentioned, it might make sense to split out (or even remove?) the prevention of mountpoint traversal. A user who can create visible mountpoints needs to have capabilities over the mount namespace the file descriptor refers to already. I suspect that if this lands, it would be pretty straightforward to add another flag AT_NO_ABSOLUTE or so that, combined with AT_NO_JUMPS, has the same semantics as O_BENEATH? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
