[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071003191735.4d92c593@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:17:35 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org, paul.moore@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 4 (2.6.23-rc8-mm2) Smack: Simplified Mandatory
Access Control Kernel
> Absolute paths in that kind of thing are _wrong_. You know where the things
> are on your fs. You don't know if anything else will be visible, let alone
> whether it will be at the same place in all chroots or namespaces. And no,
> you _can't_ make sure that fs is visible only in one place. No fs can or
> has any business even trying.
What I don't understand here is why we need the hacks when we already
support sufficient mount magic to give each login session its own
private /tmp ?
-
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