linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] VFS: Introduce mount context

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 08 May 2017 09:35:49 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] VFS: Introduce mount context

David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> > This patchset achieves this partly, but the separation is far from
> > crisp clear...  First of all why is fsopen() creating a "mount
> > context"?  It's suppsed to create a "superblock creation context".
> 
> I've no particular objection to renaming struct mount_context to something
> else, but it also needs to handle remount because of the commonality.
> 
> Further, once you've created a superblock, what are you going to do with it
> other than mount it?  I suppose you could statfs it and we could add other
> superblock manipulation functions, but this is normally done by opening the
> device directly (at least for bdev-based superblocks).

How about sb_context, sb_config, sb_parameters or something like that?

David