On Wed, March 26, 2008 9:49 am, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:32:08AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > >> > (1) The kernel don't know what operation (open/create/truncate etc.) >> > will be >> > done at the moment of link_path_walk(). >> >> Though the 'indent' data structure could be used to carry this >> information. > > If it's 'intent', Yes, sorry. > that mess will be gone next cycle. Cool. Any chance of a preview? Is it in -next or -mm ?? >> > (3) The rename() and link() operations handle two pathnames. >> > But, it is not possible to know both pathnames at the moment of >> > link_path_walk(). >> >> Not an insolvable problem. >> One could imagine an implementation where a TYPE_RENAME_FROM security >> check produced a cookie that was consumed by a TYPE_RENAME_TO security >> check. The cookie could then be used by the security module to >> make any connection between the two names that might be appropriate. > > alt.tasteless.software is that -> way... > While I have no desire to defend that particular design, saying "tasteless" without suggesting an alternate approach does appear somewhat unhelpful. NeilBrown -- 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
