| 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, 5 May 2008 21:02:43 +0200 From: Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@...ux.de> To: linux kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: VFS + path walktrough * Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote: > How _can_ server resolve symlinks, when result of symlink > resolution depends on where the damn thing is mounted on client > and even how deeply the process trying to do lookup happens > to be chrooted? In the same way as, eg. http servers, do. Of course this fails if the symlink isn't resolvable within server's fs. Several years ago, I've seen exactly this behaviour on Samba. Whether this is what you might expect, is another story ;-P > > Naive question: is it really *necessary* to have all the > > intermediate dirs in dcache ? > > The answer's "yes". What exactly are they needed for ? Which information is needed ? Can we perhaps fake them (at least we know - on success - the intermediate components are dirs) ? cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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