Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:25:45 +0100 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bindat(2) and connectat(2) syscalls for review. Message-ID: <20130217222545.GA58436@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20130214220853.GB1407@garage.freebsd.pl> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130217222545.GA58436>