[kibwen]

They're not missing, Rust just ships them (including openat) as part of the first-party libc crate rather than exposing them directly from libstd. You'll find all the other libc syscalls there as well: https://docs.rs/libc/0.2.186/libc/ . I agree that Rust's stdlib could use some higher-level helper functions to help head off TOCTOU, but it's not as simple as just exposing `openat`, which, in addition to being platform-specific as you say, is also error-prone in its own right.

[nh2]

But those are all unsafe, taking raw strings.

Why can I easily use "*at" functions from Python's stdlib, but not Rust's?

They are much safer against path traversal and symlink attacks.

Working safely with files should not require *const c_char.

This should be fixed .

[kibwen]

> But those are all unsafe, taking raw strings.

The parent was asking for access to the C syscall, and C syscalls are unsafe, including in C. You can wrap that syscall in a safe interface if you like, and many have. And to reiterate, I'm all for supporting this pattern in Rust's stdlib itself. But openat itself is a questionable API (I have not yet seen anyone mention that openat2 exists), and if Rust wanted to provide this, it would want to design something distinct.

> Why can I easily use "*at" functions from Python's stdlib, but not Rust's?

I'm not sure you can. The supported pattern appears to involve passing the optional `opener` parameter to `os.open`, but while the example of this shown in the official documentation works on Linux, I just tried it on Windows and it throws a PermissionError exception because AFAIK you can't open directories on Windows.

[rendaw]

I took parent's message to be asking why the standard library fs primitives don't use `at` functions under the hood, not that they wanted the `at` functions directly exposed.

> which Rust's stdlib chose not to expose

i.e. expose through things like `File::open()`.

[kibwen]

> why the standard library fs primitives don't use `at` functions under the hood

In this case it wouldn't seem to make sense to use `at` functions to back the standard file opening interface that Rust presents, because it requires different parameters, so a different API would need to be designed. Someone above mentioned that such an API is being considered for inclusion in libstd in this issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120426

[masklinn]

> AFAIK you can't open directories on Windows.

You can but you have to go through the lower level API: NtCreateFile can open a directory, and you can pass in a RootDirectory handle to following calls to make them handle-relative.

[ChrisSD]

You can open directories using high level win32 APIs. What you need NtCreateFile for is opening files relative to an open directory.

[yx827ha]

The nix crate provides the safe wrappers. https://docs.rs/nix/latest/nix/fcntl/fn.openat2.html

[bonzini]

The correct comparison is to rustix, not libc, and rustix is not first-party. And even then the rustix API does not encapsulate the operations into structs the same way std::fs and std::io do.

[kibwen]

The correct comparison to someone asking for first-party access to a C syscall is to the first-party crate that provides direct bindings to C syscalls. If you're willing to go further afield to third-party crates, you might as well skip rustix's "POSIX-ish" APIs (to quote their documentation) and go directly to the openat crate, which provides a Rust-style API.

[bonzini]

If I have to use unsafe just to open a file, I might as well use C. While Rustix is a happy middle that is usually enough and more popular than the open at crate, libc is in the same family as the "*-sys" crate and, generally speaking, it is not intended for direct use outside other FFI crates.

[umanwizard]

I agree it’d be nice if there were a safe stdlib openat API, but

> If I have to use unsafe just to open a file, I might as well use C.

is a ridiculous exaggeration.

[bonzini]

I agree it is an exaggeration in that of course you could write a wrapper. The point was that if everyone had to write their own FFI wrappers, Rust wouldn't go far and openat is not an exception.

There is code available at the right level of abstraction (the rustix or openat crates), and while it's not managed by the Rust team, uutils already have many third party dependencies. Bringing up libc just because it's first party, instead, is comparing apple to oranges.