From: Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu>
Subject: Re: openat(2) is mostly useless, sadly
To: "H. Hartzer" <h@hartzer.sh>
Cc: "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt@openbsd.org>, <tech@openbsd.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 22:21:13 +0200

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?

 |I'm looking forward to giving this a try.

Maybe one of those things where in the end noone understand why it
has not been done like that from the beginning.

 |-Henrich
 --End of <DA9P8IWDKRGV.SLD91CZNP0WP@hartzer.sh>

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)