[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070206094709.GB5328@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:47:09 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 07:20:35PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> It's actually not hard to "fix", and nfsd would look a little less weird. But
> what would this add, what do pathnames mean in the context of nfsd, and would
> nfsd actually become less weird?
It's not actually a pathname we care about, but a vfsmount + dentry
combo. That one means as much in nfsd as elsewhere. We want nfsd
to obey r/o or noatime mount flags if /export/foo is exported with them
but /foo not. Even better would be to change nfsd so it creates it's
own non-visible vfsmount for the filesystems it exports..
> But there is no way to tell different hardlinks to the same inode in the same
> directory from each other (both the file and directory inode are the same),
> and depending on the export options, we may or may not be able to distinguish
> different hardlinks across directories.
This doesn't matter. hardlinks are per definition on the same vfsmount.
> If the nohide or crossmnt export options are used, we might run into similar
> aliasing issues with mounts (I'm not sure about this).
no, we won't.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists