On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:25 AM Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 11:13:50AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:00 AM Christian Brauner > > <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > More magic links to beam you around sounds like a bad idea. We had a > > > bunch of CVEs around them in containers and they were one of the major > > > reasons behind us pushing for openat2(). That's why it has a > > > RESOLVE_NO_MAGICLINKS flag. > > > > No, that link wouldn't beam you around at all, it would end up in an > > internally mounted instance of a mountfs, a safe place where no > > Even if it is a magic link to a safe place it's a magic link. They > aren't a great solution to this problem. fsinfo() is cleaner and > simpler as it creates a context for a supervised mount which gives the a > managing application fine-grained control and makes it easily > extendable. Yeah, it's a nice and clean interface in the ioctl(2) sense. Sure, fsinfo() is way better than ioctl(), but it at the core it's still the same syscall multiplexer, do everything hack. > Also, we're apparently at the point where it seems were suggesting > another (pseudo)filesystem to get information about filesystems. Implementation detail. Why would you care? Thanks, Miklos
