Re: Have RESOLVE_* flags superseded AT_* flags for new syscalls?

[David Howells]

Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think we settled this and can agree on RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS being the
> right thing to do, i.e. not resolving symlinks will stay opt-in.
> Or is your worry even with the current semantics of openat2()? I don't
> see the issue since O_NOFOLLOW still works with openat2().

Say, for example, my home dir is on a network volume somewhere and /home has a
symlink pointing to it.  RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS cannot be used to access a file
inside my homedir if the pathwalk would go through /home/dhowells - this would
affect fsinfo() - so RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS is not a substitute for
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW (O_NOFOLLOW would not come into it).

David