Re: [PATCH] fcntl.h: define AT_EACCESS

[David Wagner]

Can you share some justification why it's worth extending
faccessat() with new options?

Isn't faccessat() insecure in most use cases, due to TOCTTOU
(time-of-check to time-of-use) vulnerabilities?  When faccessat()
returns 0, you learn that at some point in the past, the process had
permission to access a given file, though the process may or may not
have permission at the moment.  Why is that a useful thing to know?

I'm sure you're familiar with all the standard arguments why using
access() tends to represent a security vulnerability.  Is there a reason
why similar arguments do not apply to faccessat()?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/