On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, but that allows modules to circumvent VFS policy which is what
> allowed this situation to come up in the first place.
So, realistically, what's the downside of just adding LOOKUP_DIRECTORY
(or LOOKUP_OPEN) to the nfs_follow_remote_path() case?
And if we decide that we really *really* must never bind-mount a
automount point, we could certainly add LOOKUP_OPEN to that case too,
but my gut feel is that's a "doctor, doctor, it hurts when I put a
nail in my eye" kind of case - do we really care? Is it a sane
operation to do to begin with?
My gut feel is that either of (or both) of
LOOKUP_OPEN/LOOKUP_DIRECTORY is a saner flag to check for than
LOOKUP_FOLLOW ever was. Let's keep LOOKUP_FOLLOW as being the "acts on
symlink or the thing it points to", and nothing else.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
