Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? David
