| 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
| ||
|
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