On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 04:17:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > 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 "../.."? All of those will be rejected - in each of those cases pathname traversal leads back into the starting point with .. being the next component to handle.
