[d_path 0/7] Fixes to d_path: Respin

[Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 19:21, Alan Cox wrote:
> Can you prove no existing application on the planet relies on the
> existing behaviour ? Actually more limited but sane as a test would be
> "Can you prove that the glibc behaviour visible to applications does not
> change"

As far as I can see, glibc internally looks at /proc/mounts (or else mtab) to
find out where tmpfs is mounted for opening files there, and to look up
filesystem information for statfs(), while accessing that path, too. Fstatfs()
also looks into the same files, but it only matches by filesystem type, so this
is only a very unreliable heuristic, anyway.

So judging from that, glibc users should be fine.

> I disagree - firstly because of not breaking stuff, and secondly because
> it separates two discussions - merging AppArmor being one of them , and
> the correct behaviour for getcwd & /proc/mounts being the other.

I agree with the separation of discussion argument. Here are patches that
change getcwd() and /proc/mounts independent of the changes that AppArmor
depends on.

Thanks for your feedback!

Andreas

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/