Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 11:36 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 12:08 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> >> yes, of course, vfsmount, which I assume is what Eric meant?
>> >>
>> >> Which means we'd have to do this at permission() using the nameidata, or
>> >> pass nd to generic_permission.
>> >
>> > Yeah, I think so. But, this is well into Al territory, and there might
>> > be a better way.
>>
>> Well until we get that sorted out I will keep picking on i_sb.
>
> Don't bother: labelling superblocks with process-specific data is always
> going to be unacceptable.
It's not process specific data. It is a pointer to global context in
which uid's on the filesystem uniquely specify a user. This is
something that would get set when the filesystem is mounted.
> In order to avoid aliased superblocks, you would have to be able
> guarantee to be the sole owner of the data on the device that it refers
> to. You'd have to own the device in order to do that, in which case you
> are better off just labelling the device instead.
Now I do agree if I can set the information in vfsmount and not in
the superblock it is probably better. But even with nfs mount superblock
collapsing (which I almost understand) I don't see it as a real
problem, as long as I could prevent the superblock from collapsing.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
