On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:42:52PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > You are right - we do have races there. Always had. > > And nfsd_permission() is the next target for continuation of ro-bind > > series. Assuming that we don't simply make r/w export to hold will_write > > all along, in which case all these checks around calls of vfs_...() in > > there simply go away - that's also an arguable option. > > Yes. And that _still_ doesn't make the path_*() interface wrong. It would make it bloody useless for nfsd. With ecryptfs being a piss-poor argument in favour of anything other than git rm, what's left? Another stack frame in fs/namei.c syscalls? -- 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
