>> On the other hand, if you actually want to protect the _data_, then
tagging the _name_ is flawed; tag the *DATA* instead.
Would it make sense to label the data (resource) with a list of paths
(names) that can be used to access it?
Therefore the data would be protected against being accessed via
alternative arbitrary names. This may be a simple label to maintain and
(possibly to) enforce, allowing path based confinement to protect a
resource. This may allow for the benefits of pathname based confinement
while avoiding some of its problems.
Obviously this would not protect against a pathname pointing to
arbitrary data…
Just a thought.
Z. Cliffe Schreuders.
-
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
