On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, 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. Can you clarify this last one? I assume that ".." will be rejected, but what about "a/../.."? How about "b" if b is a symlink to ".."? How about "a/b" if a is a directory and b is a symlink to "../.."? > Right now I have it hooked only for fstatat() and friends; it could be > easily extended to any ...at() syscalls. Objections? I like it, assuming the answers to all the questions above are that they will be rejected.
