Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:46:14 +0200 From: u-wsnj@...ey.se To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: faccessat and AT_SYM_NOFOLLOW On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:01:10PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > to get the file ownership and mode and performs its own access > permissions check in userspace. This is imprecise and does not > respect ACLs or any other advanced permission models provided by Of course, that's plainly wrong. > So my conclusion? There are some moderate-level documentation errors. > glibc implements the flag, but not correctly. The changes I would > recommend to the documentation: > > 1. Document that AT_SYM_NOFOLLOW is not standard for this function, > and is a glibc extension. (uclibc is just a copy of glibc code) > > 2. Document that AT_SYM_NOFOLLOW and AT_EACCESS are emulated and > unreliable on glibc. > > 3. Document that the man page is covering the POSIX/glibc function > details, and the kernel syscall does not support flags at all. > (This might aid in getting the kernel folks to add a new faccessat4 > syscall that would do flags at the kernel level.) > > Do these sound reasonable? Yes (but I would look for a stronger wording than "unreliable" :) > Issue 2: Should musl support or ignore the AT_SYM_NOFOLLOW with > faccessat? [your analysis looks for my eyes correct] I would not bother implementing something which does not make sense (worse, would mislead the programmers, iow inflicting damage instead of doing any good). Regards, Rune
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.