Hi! > >>The code has improved, and continues to improve, to meet all the coding > >>style feedback except the bits which are essential to AA's function > > > >Which are exactly the bits Christoph Hellwig and Al Viro > >vetoed. http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/2587.html > >. I believe it takes more than "2 users want it" to overcome veto of > >VFS maintainer. > > so you are saying that _any_ pathname based solution is not acceptable to > the kernel, no matter what? You'd have to ask Christoph the same question. AFAICT, reconstructing full path then basing security on that is a no-no. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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
