On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 09:48 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:25 +1100, James Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > Ok, this makes a lot more sense. These defintively should be different > > > hooks in that case, and no matter what name they have (no good ideas > > > from me either currently) > > > > Perhaps setsecctx and storesecctx ? > > Or possibly notifysecctx (notify security module of a secctx value for > the inode) vs. setsecctx (set this sectx on this inode, including both > in-core update and invoking the __vfs_setxattr_noperm helper). > So are we keeping the dentry parameter for these calls, or am I changing them over to an inode. If it is going to use an inode this means I need to change the parameters for the xattr code. Is there a reason why the xattr code takes dentries instead of an inode? Dave -- 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
