Re: [PATCH] Bindings to *at functions & allowing more functions to operate on ports

2021-05-05 Thread Maxime Devos
rob piko schreef op di 04-05-2021 om 18:58 [-0400]: > Hello Maxime, > > > * 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 > >

Re: [PATCH] Bindings to *at functions & allowing more functions to operate on ports

2021-05-04 Thread rob piko
Hello Maxime, > * 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 >

Re: [PATCH] Bindings to *at functions & allowing more functions to operate on ports

2021-03-27 Thread Maxime Devos
Hi, [CC'ing some Guile and Guix maintainers because this is important for the security of Guix System.] I want to explain why these patches (and the O_FLAGS (*) patch) should be included in Guile. Functions like "openat" are important to avoid TOCTTOU (time-of-check to time-of-use)