On 12/30/2019 6:09 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2019-12-30 14:47, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 12/30/2019 3:55 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>> On 2019-12-30 12:53, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/30/2019 2:18 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2019-12-29 10:56, Ken Brown wrote:
>> Currently, opening a symlink
On 2019-12-30 14:47, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 12/30/2019 3:55 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> On 2019-12-30 12:53, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 12/30/2019 2:18 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2019-12-29 10:56, Ken Brown wrote:
> Currently, opening a symlink with O_NOFOLLOW fails with ELOOP.
> Following
On 12/30/2019 3:55 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2019-12-30 12:53, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 12/30/2019 2:18 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>> On 2019-12-29 10:56, Ken Brown wrote:
Currently, opening a symlink with O_NOFOLLOW fails with ELOOP.
Following Linux, the first patch in this series allows
On 2019-12-30 12:53, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 12/30/2019 2:18 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> On 2019-12-29 10:56, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> Currently, opening a symlink with O_NOFOLLOW fails with ELOOP.
>>> Following Linux, the first patch in this series allows the call to
>>> succeed if O_PATH is also specifi
On 12/30/2019 2:18 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2019-12-29 10:56, Ken Brown wrote:
>> Currently, opening a symlink with O_NOFOLLOW fails with ELOOP.
>> Following Linux, the first patch in this series allows the call to
>> succeed if O_PATH is also specified.
>>
>> According to the Linux man page fo
On 2019-12-29 10:56, Ken Brown wrote:
> Currently, opening a symlink with O_NOFOLLOW fails with ELOOP.
> Following Linux, the first patch in this series allows the call to
> succeed if O_PATH is also specified.
>
> According to the Linux man page for 'open', the file descriptor
> returned by the c
