[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17864.22470.113271.293084@notabene.brown>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:26:14 +1100
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
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 Tuesday February 6, hch@...radead.org wrote:
> 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..
What would be the benefit of having private non-visible vfsmounts?
Sounds like a recipe for confusion?
It is possible that mountd might start doing bind-mounts to create the
'pseudo filesystem' thing for NFSv4, but they would be very visible
(under /var/lib/nfs/v4root or something). So having it's own vfsmount
might make sense, but I don't get 'non-visible'.
NeilBrown
-
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