[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070604113519.GA6710@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:35:20 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc: jjohansen@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 38/45] AppArmor: Module and LSM hooks
On Mon 2007-06-04 13:25:30, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2007 12:55, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2007-05-23 18:16:45, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:14, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Why is this configurable?
> > >
> > > The maximum length of a pathname is an arbitrary limit: we don't want to
> > > allocate arbitrary amounts of of kernel memory for pathnames so we
> > > introduce this limit and set it to a reasonable value. In the unlikely
> > > case that someone uses insanely long pathnames, this limit can be
> > > increased.
> >
> > vfs does not have configurable pathname limit, and I do not see what
> > is so special about AA to require this kind of uglyness.
>
> You very well know that the vfs has a limit of PATH_MAX characters (4096) for
> pathnames. This means that at most that many characters can be passed at
> once.
Sorry then. Why not reuse the PATH_MAX when it exists already?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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