Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE_* flags [ver #18]

[David Howells]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > Also make openat2() handle RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS.
> 
> No, please let's not do this.
> 
> We have O_NOFOLLOW, and we can't get rid of it.
> 
> So adding RESOLVE_NO_TRAILING_SYMLINKS isn't a cleanup. It's just
> extra complexity for absolutely zero gain.

Okay.  So what's the equivalent of AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW in RESOLVE_* flag
terms?  RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS is not equivalent, though O_NOFOLLOW is.  The
reason I ask is that RESOLVE_* flags can't be easily extended to non-open
syscalls that don't take O_* flags without it.  Would you prefer that new
non-open syscalls continue to take AT_* and ignore RESOLVE_* flags?  That
would be fine by me.

David