[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Bindings to *at functions & allowing more functions to opera
Re: [PATCH] Bindings to *at functions & allowing more functions to operate on ports
Tue, 4 May 2021 18:58:45 -0400
> * Use O_NOFOLLOW to *not* follow the symbolic link.
> Patch for adding O_NOFOLLOW to guile:
According to the man pages for the O_NOFOLLOW:
If the trailing component (i.e., basename) of pathname is
a symbolic link, then the open fails, with the error
ELOOP. Symbolic links in earlier components of the
pathname will still be followed.
Sounds like O_NOFOLLOW would not fix the issue if the symlink is found in other parts of the pathname outside of the basename?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:19:20PM +0100, Maxime Devos wrote:
> [CC'ing some Guile and Guix maintainers because this is
> important for the security of Guix System.]
[snipped CC, since my answer is just a thankyou]
> I want to explain why these patches (and the O_FLAGS (*)
> patch) should be included in Guile [...]
This from someone striving to make Guile the "default tool for
around the house".
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings to *at functions & allowing more functions to operate on ports,
rob piko <=