On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 08:37:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:40:43PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > The vfsmount will be passed down to the LSM hook so that LSMs can compute > > pathnames. > > You know, you really are supposed to understand the code you are modifying... > Quiz: what are those vfsmounts and how are they related? > In the current code, both vfsmounts are always identical, and so one of the two should go, agreed. The thought behind passing both vfsmounts was that they could differ but point to the same super_block, in which case renames would still be possible at least from a filesystem point of view. The essential restriction here is that both files must be on the same device; the vfs restriction of not allowing cross-mount renames is arbitrary. Cross-mount renames are not allowed currently, and granted, they may not be very useful, either. > Al, carefully abstaining from saying what he really thinks of LSM and its > users... As always, it's a pleasure to see the genuine Viro charm at play.
Attachment:
pgpZTudq75Fjw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: linux-2.6.23-git3: Many sysfs-related warnings in dmesg
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix boot protocol KEEP_SEGMENTS check.
- Previous by thread: Re: [AppArmor 19/45] Add struct vfsmount parameters to vfs_rename()
- Next by thread: Re: [AppArmor 19/45] Add struct vfsmount parameters to vfs_rename()
- Index(es):
 |