Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
