| 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: <E1K1iiF-00086t-Ve@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:39 +0200 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: hch@...radead.org CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bfields@...i.umich.edu, neilb@...e.de Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] nfsd: rename MAY_ flags > > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz> > > > > Rename nfsd specific MAY_* flags to NFSD_MAY_* to make it clear, that > > these are not used outside nfsd, and to avoid namespace conflicts with > > the VFS. > > But they _are_ in the same namespace as the VFS ones. This needs to be > sorted out by real by understanding what's going on here and either > separating this flags out and passing them in a separate argument, or > moving them to include/linux/fs.h so it's obvious for anyone adding new > flags that they must not collide. Neither I think. What's going on is that nfsd has a private set of permission flags, and a private permission checking function, which incidentally calls the vfs' permission checking function. Does it hurt to share the three base MAY_ flags for this purpose? I don't think it does, but I'm interested in the nfsd maintainers' opinions. Thanks, 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