On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 08:24:23PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. It sounds like there is some > general agreement that the issue needs to be solved, but some folks do not > want it in the core VFS. As in, the objections aren't with how symlink > behavior is changed, just that the changes would be in the fs/ directory. No, it's not. It's not a change we can make for the default that everyone uses. If you're keen to mess up installations you control (aka ubuntu valuedadd viper) push it into a special LSM or rather a non-standard rule for it. It really doesn't matter if it's in fs/ or security/ but it's simplify not going to happen by default. > My rationale is that if it's in commoncaps, it's effective for everyone, so > it might as well be in core VFS. If the VFS objections really do boil down > to "not in fs/" then I'm curious if doing this in commoncaps is acceptable. If you think the objection is about having things in fs/ you're smoking some really bad stuff. -- 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
