On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > > In other words, revoking file handles is not enough, we really need to > > revoke the _inode_. And if we do that then O_NODE handles are > > perfectly harmless. > > If you have revoke() you are half way there, you also the need to make > sure any user cases are updated and well established before you change > anything under them. It's not good adding a kernel feature which makes an > old udev version insecure. It doesn't, see example with hard link two mails up. Alan, you are just ignoring facts and trying to push revoke(2) which in fact doesn't have much to do with this issue. revoke(2) is about *open devices*, O_NODE doesn't produce an open device. Don't you understand that? Thanks, 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
