Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think we settled this and can agree on RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS being the > right thing to do, i.e. not resolving symlinks will stay opt-in. > Or is your worry even with the current semantics of openat2()? I don't > see the issue since O_NOFOLLOW still works with openat2(). Say, for example, my home dir is on a network volume somewhere and /home has a symlink pointing to it. RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS cannot be used to access a file inside my homedir if the pathwalk would go through /home/dhowells - this would affect fsinfo() - so RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS is not a substitute for AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW (O_NOFOLLOW would not come into it). David
