lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: r-o bind in nfsd
From
Date
> > I know there are a few cases, where filesystems call vfs_foo()
> > internally, where the vfsmount isn't available, but I think the proper
> > solution is just to fix those places, and not recurse back into the
> > VFS (which is AFAICS in all those cases totally unnecessary anyway).
> > This would make everybody happy, no?
>
> Apparmor can go play with itself. The proper fix is to lift the LSM nonsense
> into callers and leave vfs_...() alone;

Maybe. I know precious little about this security thing, so I won't
argue about it's merits or faults. But:

a) I have a hunch that the security guys wouldn't like to see the
order between permission() and security_foo() changed.

b) I fail to see how moving functionality to callers would improve
things

> vfsmounts should *not* be passed there at all, with the exception of
> vfs_follow_link() which gets the full nameidata.

Why?

Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 17:27    [W:0.052 / U:1.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site