-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15k
dirfd file operations (2/4) #150679
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Qelxiros
wants to merge
1
commit into
rust-lang:main
Choose a base branch
from
Qelxiros:dirfd-files
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+314
−20
Open
dirfd file operations (2/4) #150679
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this check somewhere that the passed
pathis relative? Otherwise we're not actually getting the promised semantics: "If path is absolute, then dirfd is ignored." (https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/unlink.2.html)View changes since the review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That seems like a question for all dirfd-relative operations that take a path: should they require the path to be relative, or should they allow absolute paths and do the obvious thing for them? IMO it makes sense to allow absolute paths. That basically lets you use dirfd as a "local working directory" without the downsides of
set_current_dir.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The argument against is that people would like to use dirfd in security relevant contexts. You can build a less secure variant on top of dirfd but not really the other way around (well technically you can but defaulting to the less secure option has historically been a footgun).
But in any case, I think this is a question for libs-api.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's unstable, so you can put it on the open questions in the tracking issue? I don't think this needs to be settled immediately.
On linux there's
openat2which adds RESOLVE_BENEATH and RESOLVE_IN_ROOT flags which give you certain security properties, depending on which you want.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The tracking issue explicitly says that this is NOT using O_BENEATH. We also have a fallback implementation that just stores the dir name as a string. So anything security critical seems to be already ruled out.
I have added this to #120426.