[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1Jckjd-0001X8-IM@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:08:53 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
CC: haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: r-o bind in nfsd
> Nobody wants to send vfsmounts to the filesystem. But vfs_...() are
> still part of the "upper layer", not the filesystem, so I'm not
> convinced yet. For example:
>
> -extern int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *, struct dentry *, int);
> +extern int vfs_mkdir(const struct path *, struct dentry *, int);
>
> There's one caller of vfs_mkdir that can't do this: cgroup_clone().
> But that can call cgroup_mkdir() instead.
>
> And having the vfsmount available within vfs_...() functions means,
> that the mnt_want_write() check can be moved inside, which means that
> callers get simpler and less likely to be buggy. Those are all
> advantages IMO, regardless of any security module issues.
Or we can introduce another set of exported functions (path_mkdir(),
...), and leave vfs_...() alone. And then the only question is if
LSM's can live with ordering change.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists