On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 03:12:15PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:30:24 +1000, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks, I had both of the same concerns as Christoph with API > > change and exposing symlink fds last time I looked at the patces, > > actually. > > > > But they can probably be worked around or avoided. I think the more > > important thing is whether it is worth supporting. This is > > all restricted to root (or CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH) only, right, and > > what exact semantics they want. I would like to see more discussion > > of what this enables and some results. > > > > For the case of avoiding expensive network revalidations in path name > > lookup, do we even need to open symlinks? Could the security issues be > > avoided by always having handle attached to an open fd? > > > > For implementing a userspace file server that use handle for > representing files (like NFS) we would require to have the ability to do > different file system operations that can operate on symlink to work on > handle too. Right. Is this a really important goal, I'm wondering? Is it realistic (ie. to be able to remove the nfs server from the kernel)? -- 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
