From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Feb 17 22:26:02 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC439638;
 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:26:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jilles@stack.nl)
Received: from mx1.stack.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5012::107])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4DAB0E;
 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:26:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from snail.stack.nl (snail.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::131])
 by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8973C1203C5;
 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:25:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: by snail.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 1677)
 id 09CB92848C; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:25:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:25:45 +0100
From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: bindat(2) and connectat(2) syscalls for review.
Message-ID: <20130217222545.GA58436@stack.nl>
References: <20130213230354.GC1375@garage.freebsd.pl>
 <20130213232004.GA2522@kib.kiev.ua>
 <20130213234030.GD1375@garage.freebsd.pl>
 <20130214185549.GA36288@stack.nl>
 <20130214220853.GB1407@garage.freebsd.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130214220853.GB1407@garage.freebsd.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:26:03 -0000

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> bind(2) and connect(2) are used just fine currently without any flags.
> I'd like to see good example before I decide to add such argument. The
> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag is of no use here, it is used for syscalls that
> can operate on symlinks (you can chmod, chown or stat a symlink, so it
> does make sense there).

By that reasoning, the O_NOFOLLOW open flag should not exist.

However, it seems that it is uncommon to bind/connect to sockets located
in untrusted directories. Also, any flag could be implemented instead as
a setsockopt() on the socket.

-- 
Jilles Tjoelker