On 2020-03-02, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:05:04PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 12:52:39PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 12:30:47PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Christian Brauner: > > > > > > > > > [Cc Florian since that ends up on libc's table sooner or later...] > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you are after here … > > > > > > Exactly what you've commented below. Input on whether any of these > > > changes would be either problematic if you e.g. were to implement > > > openat() on top of openat2() in the future or if it would be problematic > > > if we e.g. were to really deprecate AT_* flags for new syscalls. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:53:32PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I've been told that RESOLVE_* flags, which can be found in linux/openat2.h, > > > > >> should be used instead of the equivalent AT_* flags for new system calls. Is > > > > >> this the case? > > > > > > > > > > Imho, it would make sense to use RESOLVE_* flags for new system calls > > > > > and afair this was the original intention. > > > > > The alternative is that RESOLVE_* flags are special to openat2(). But > > > > > that seems strange, imho. The semantics openat2() has might be very > > > > > useful for new system calls as well which might also want to support > > > > > parts of AT_* flags (see fsinfo()). So we either end up adding new AT_* > > > > > flags mirroring the new RESOLVE_* flags or we end up adding new > > > > > RESOLVE_* flags mirroring parts of AT_* flags. And if that's a > > > > > possibility I vote for RESOLVE_* flags going forward. The have better > > > > > naming too imho. > > > > > > > > > > An argument against this could be that we might end up causing more > > > > > confusion for userspace due to yet another set of flags. But maybe this > > > > > isn't an issue as long as we restrict RESOLVE_* flags to new syscalls. > > > > > When we introduce a new syscall userspace will have to add support for > > > > > it anyway. > > > > > > > > I missed the start of the dicussion and what this is about, sorry. > > > > > > > > Regarding open flags, I think the key point for future APIs is to avoid > > > > using the set of flags for both control of the operation itself > > > > (O_NOFOLLOW/AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, O_NOCTTY) and properaties of the > > > > resulting descriptor (O_RDWR, O_SYNC). I expect that doing that would > > > > Yeah, we have touched on that already and we have other APIs having > > related problems. A clean way to avoid this problem is to require new > > syscalls to either have two flag arguments, or - if appropriate - > > suggest they make use of struct open_how that was implemented for > > openat2(). > > By the way, if we really means business wrt to: separate resolution from > fd-property falgs then shouldn't we either require O_NOFOLLOW for > openat2() be specified in open_how->resolve or disallow O_NOFOLLOW for > openat2() and introduce a new RESOLVE_* variant? I think we agreed a while ago we aren't touching O_ flags for openat2() because it would hamper adoption (this is the same reason we aren't fixing the whole O_ACCMODE mess, and O_LARGEFILE, and the arch-specific O_ flags, and O_TMPFILE, and __O_SYNC, and FASYNC/O_ASYNC, and __FMODE_EXEC and __FMODE_NONOTIFY, and ...). To be fair, we did fix O_PATH|O_TMPFILE and invalid mode combinations but that's only because those were fairly broken. But as I mentioned in a sister mail, I do agree that allowing O_NOFOLLOW and RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS makes me feel a little uneasy. But maybe it's totally fine and I'm worrying for no reason. -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
