Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

[David Howells]

Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW only applies to the last pathname component anyway,
> > so it's relatively little protection.
> 
> So this is partially why I think it's at least worth considerings: the
> new RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS flag does block all symlink resolution, not just
> for the last component in contrast to AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. This is
> 278121417a72d87fb29dd8c48801f80821e8f75a

That sounds like a potentially significant UAPI change.  What will that break?

David