Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:55:15 -0500 | From | Jeff Mahoney <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.10-rc2-mm4 |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Christoph Hellwig wrote: | On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 11:29:03AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: | |>My concerns are that the check has to be duplicated in any module, |>and that thus far we've tried to keep out fs -> module communication, |>letting vfs do it. This could at least be fs -> vfs communication, |>and then either vfs or security framework could check flags and never |>call into module on fs private objects. | | | (1) an inode beeing private could have much more uses even outside LSM | (2) it's an awfull lot of code where having a flag is really little code | (3) there 's lots of room in the inode flags | | I can't find anything that speaks for the messy current implementation
I'd agree with this assessment. The original purpose of the private flag was reiserfs-internal to avoid locking issues with xattrs-on-xattrs. SELinux just happened to try to use xattrs-on-xattrs from outside the filesystem. Without being too familiar with selinux, I used the patch because it "just worked."
Such a VFS-level flag could provide the same functionality while allowing me to remove the private flag from reiserfs.
- -Jeff
- -- Jeff Mahoney SuSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBrNAjLPWxlyuTD7IRAj/lAJ4yZ0zfrDqm+LC4ue8Ph7eA9cQHcgCgpNwX 4q3nWWsm0HOsNvQO9exXvwc= =1nSR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/
| |