On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> That could still allow crossing mount-points, but only if they are >>> non-bind mounts and cannot let us escape. >>> >>> I'm not sure if that's testable, though. >> >> This one isn't, unfortunately - there is no difference between bind and >> no-bind; vfsmounts form a tree and both normal mount and bind add leaves >> to it. Moreover, mount -t ext2 /dev/sdc7 /mnt; mount -t ext2 /dev/sdc7 >> /tmp/a >> yield the same state as mount -t ext2 /dev/sdc7; mount --bind /mnt /tmp/a. >> There is no way to tell the difference, simply because there *is* no >> difference. Moreover, either can be followed by umount /mnt and you'll get >> the same state as you would have after a solitary mount of the same fs on >> /tmp/a. > > Fair enough. > >> Ho-hum... So: >> >> AT_BENEATH AT_XDEV AT_NO_SYMLINKS >> absolute pathname: EXDEV >> non-relative symlink: EXDEV ? ELOOP >> relative symlink: ELOOP >> .. from starting point: EXDEV >> .. crossing mountpoint: EXDEV >> crossing into mountpoint: EXDEV >> >> 1) What should AT_XDEV do about absolute symlinks? Nothing special? EXDEV? >> EXDEV if we are not on root? > > My mental model would say that AT_XDEV without AT_BENEATH would > _logically_ result in "EXDEV if / is a different vfsmount", accept the > absolute path otherwise. > > But honestly, just returning EXDEV unconditionally for an absolute > symlink might just be the simpler and more straightforward thing to > do. > > Because testing the particular vfsmount of / simply doesn't seem to be > a very useful operation. I dunno.
My intuition is that, regardless of whether it's obviously useful to test the vfsmount, we should allow / if it's the same mount for orthogonality and because it seems more likely to be the expected behavior. > >> 3) What effect should AT_NO_SYMLINKS have upon the final component? Same >> as AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW? > > I actually would suggest "error if it's followed". > > So if you use AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW | AT_NO_SYMLINKS, then you do *not* > get an error if the last component (but nothing before it) is a > symlink, and the end result is the symlink itself. > > If you use just AT_NO_SYMLINKS, then the lack of NOFOLLOW implies that > you'd follow the symlink to look it up, and then AT_NO_SYMLINKS means > that you get an error (ELOOP). > > So the user gets to choose, and gets to basically indicate whether > it's fine to end at a dangling symlink or not. Which is exactly what > AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW is all about. Sounds reasonable to me. --Andy
