linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] file as directory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1Hqn9I-0001V1-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 11:28:52 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	jblunck@...e.de
CC:	viro@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] file as directory

> > So your question is, which mount takes priority on the lookup?  It
> > probably should be the propagated real mount, rather than the
> > dir-on-file one, shouldn't it?
> >
> 
> Maybe this might belong into __link_path_walk() similar to the
> handling of symbolic links. If the real mount has always higher
> priority why do we bother in follow_mount() about it.

Do you mean, that follow_mount() should never descend into the
dir-on-file mount but that should always be done by
__link_path_walk()?

This could make sense.

__lookup_mnt() currently returns the first matching mount in the hash
list.  With your suggestion, we'd need two __lookup_mnt() variants (or
a parameter).  One, that only matches normal mounts, and one that only
matches dir-on-file mounts.  Is that it?

Miklos
-
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/