Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-05-02 Thread Al Viro
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote: > > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-05-02 Thread Al Viro
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote: > > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-05-02 Thread Pavel Machek
On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote: > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included) Returning error or returning the object that should be

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-05-02 Thread Pavel Machek
On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote: > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included) Returning error or returning the object that should be

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-03-20 Thread Omar Sandoval
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 06:46:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > > * no

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-03-20 Thread Omar Sandoval
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 06:46:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > > * no mountpoint crossings allowed

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-03-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote: > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included) > * only relative

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-03-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote: > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included) > * only relative symlinks traversals are

[RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-03-19 Thread Al Viro
Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included) * only relative symlinks traversals are allowed * starting point acts as a chroot boundary

[RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

2017-03-19 Thread Al Viro
Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the potential usefulness of the following ...at() option: * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included) * only relative symlinks traversals are allowed * starting point acts as a chroot boundary