> > These patches fix several issues raised at previous submissions: > > > > - passing NULL vfsmounts > > - using nameidata > > - using extra stack for vfsmount argument > > > > So, it seems to me that there's in fact no issues remaining and the > > best excuse you can come up with is that it's a dumb idea. Well, > > that's not a very imressive technical argument IMNSHO. > > Well, pathname based access control is a dumb idea, and we've been > through this N times. You think it's a dumb idea. Several major distros, which ship the code, *despite* being out-of-tree, don't. > You've also been told that vfs_ routines should > remain without vfsmount, Oh, I've been told. But valid technical reason given? No. Such hand waving won't help your cause at all. It's time for you to actually look at the patches and stat technical reasons why they are wrong, or let them be included. Is it so hard to understand that the decision to include apparmor is not in your hands? You can argue against the concept of apparmor itself, but you better argue with Crispin, because I'm quite clueless about that part. When you've convinced him (and Linus (and Ubuntu, and SUSE, and Mandriva)) that apparmor is a stupid idea, then I'll give up. Good luck with that! Miklos -- 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
