On Tuesday 06 February 2007 01:52, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:13:26PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Monday 05 February 2007 10:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Looking at the actual patches I see you're lazy in a lot of places. > > > Please make sure that when you introduce a vfsmount argument somewhere > > > that it is _always_ passed and not just when it's conveniant. Yes, > > > that's more work, but then again if you're not consistant anyone > > > half-serious will laught at a security model using this infrasturcture. > > > > It may appear like laziness, but it's not. Let's look at where we're > > passing NULL at the moment: > > You know, I've tracked a lot of this down previously when I submitted > patches to add vfsmount arguments to the vfs_ helpers, just to get tought > by Al that this is a bad idea :) Hmmm, I really would like to know how else we could get at that information in the lsm hooks then. Andreas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
