On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:23:53AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> 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.
It's called "access control". Pathname-based one, BTW. And yes, it's
100% deliberate.
> Cross-mount renames are not allowed currently, and granted, they may not
> be very useful, either.
<raised brows>
Excuse me, but IIRC LSM was supposed to _add_ restrictions, not to remove
existing security checks.
-
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]
