Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu> wrote:

> H. Hartzer wrote in
>  <DA9P8IWDKRGV.SLD91CZNP0WP@hartzer.sh>:
>  |Theo de Raadt wrote:
>  |> instead of requiring a programmer to put a flag on every system call \
>  |> acting
>  |> upon the object.  Two operational flags are added, O_BELOW and F_BELOW.
>  ...
>  |I wanted to point out that the language can be confusing of "above",
>  |"below", etc. Now it may be that this is named as appropriately as it
>  |can be, but while I was reading my instinct was that "below" meant a
>  |child directory, rather than a parent. I think there may be some
>  |confusion over the semantics.
>  |
>  |O_BELOW also sounds somewhat like it allows below, but not only below.
>  |Maybe O_ONLYBELOW? Another possibility might be something like O_CHROOT,
>  |which is a familiar and similar term, though might add other confusion.
>  |
>  |I think that ascend/descend might be somewhat more intuitive terms.
>  |Perhaps O_DESCEND, or O_ONLYDESCEND.
> 
> How about "beneath" as Linux landlock uses?

How about I use some other flag which already exists, and has different
semantics.  Like how about O_EXCL??

/sarc

You see, O_BENEATH already exists elsewhere, and is not compatible.
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2808


We are at the stage where people want to change the names of things,
but I don't know of one person who has compiled a kernel with the diffs.