From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:17:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrXhOhG0tRDDOROwT9ghvQvKziM2PBN=CX5Soa2m7=0cFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170429220414.GT29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170429220414.GT29622-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux API <linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org> 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.