mirror of https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages
mount_setattr.2: srcfix: add note explaining Christian's use of -ve dirfd values
From email with Christian Brauner: >>>>>> int fd_tree = open_tree(-EBADF, source, >>>>>> OPEN_TREE_CLONE | OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC | >>>>>> AT_EMPTY_PATH | (recursive ? AT_RECURSIVE : 0)); >>>>> >>>>> ??? >>>>> What is the significance of -EBADF here? As far as I can tell, it >>>>> is not meaningful to open_tree()? >>>> >>>> I always pass -EBADF for similar reasons to [2]. Feel free to just use -1. >>> >>> ???? >>> But here, both -EBADF and -1 seem to be wrong. This argument >>> is a dirfd, and so should either be a file descriptor or the >>> value AT_FDCWD, right? >> >> [1]: In this code "source" is expected to be absolute. If it's not >> absolute we should fail. This can be achieved by passing -1/-EBADF, >> afaict. > > D'oh! Okay. I hadn't considered that use case for an invalid dirfd. > (And now I've done some adjustments to openat(2),which contains a > rationale for the *at() functions.) > > So, now I understand your purpose, but still the code is obscure, > since > > * You use a magic value (-EBADF) rather than (say) -1. > * There's no explanation (comment about) of the fact that you want > to prevent relative pathnames. > > So, I've changed the code to use -1, not -EBADF, and I've added some > comments to explain that the intent is to prevent relative pathnames. > Okay? Sounds good. > > But, there is still the meta question: what's the problem with using > a relative pathname? Nothing per se. Ok, you asked so it's your fault: When writing programs I like to never use relative paths with AT_FDCWD because. Because making assumptions about the current working directory of the calling process is just too easy to get wrong; especially when pivot_root() or chroot() are in play. My absolut preference (joke intended) is to open a well-known starting point with an absolute path to get a dirfd and then scope all future operations beneath that dirfd. This already works with old-style openat() and _very_ cautious programming but openat2() and its resolve-flag space have made this **chef's kiss**. If I can't operate based on a well-known dirfd I use absolute paths with a -EBADF dirfd passed to *at() functions. Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
669d6302cb
commit
4c313d979d
|
@ -981,6 +981,18 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
|
|||
|
||||
/* In the following, \-1 as the \(aqdirfd\(aq argument ensures that
|
||||
open_tree() fails if \(aqsource\(aq is not an absolute pathname. */
|
||||
.\" Christian Brauner
|
||||
.\" When writing programs I like to never use relative paths with AT_FDCWD
|
||||
.\" because. Because making assumptions about the current working directory
|
||||
.\" of the calling process is just too easy to get wrong; especially when
|
||||
.\" pivot_root() or chroot() are in play.
|
||||
.\" My absolut preference (joke intended) is to open a well-known starting
|
||||
.\" point with an absolute path to get a dirfd and then scope all future
|
||||
.\" operations beneath that dirfd. This already works with old-style
|
||||
.\" openat() and _very_ cautious programming but openat2() and its
|
||||
.\" resolve-flag space have made this **chef's kiss**.
|
||||
.\" If I can't operate based on a well-known dirfd I use absolute paths
|
||||
.\" with a -EBADF dirfd passed to *at() functions.
|
||||
|
||||
int fd_tree = open_tree(\-1, source,
|
||||
OPEN_TREE_CLONE | OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC |
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue