| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200706272242.26618.agruen@suse.de> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:42:26 +0200 From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de> To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> Cc: jjohansen@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs On Wednesday 27 June 2007 01:46, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 16:15 -0700, jjohansen@...e.de wrote: > > To remove conditionally passing of vfsmounts to the LSM, a nameidata > > struct can be instantiated in the nfsd and mqueue filesystems. This > > however results in useless information being passed down, as not > > all fields in the nameidata struct will be meaingful. The nameidata > > struct is split creating struct nameidata2 that contains only the > > fields > > that will carry meaningful information. > > I don't object to the concept per se, but could you please give it a > more descriptive name please? "struct vfs_intent" would be a lot more > accurate than "nameidata2". Yes, the name is pretty arbitrary. vfs_intent is better, even though the struct doesn't only include the intent data. Thanks, Andreas - 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