[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks
    On Tuesday February 6, wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 07:20:35PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
    > > It's actually not hard to "fix", and nfsd would look a little less weird. But
    > > what would this add, what do pathnames mean in the context of nfsd, and would
    > > nfsd actually become less weird?
    > It's not actually a pathname we care about, but a vfsmount + dentry
    > combo. That one means as much in nfsd as elsewhere. We want nfsd
    > to obey r/o or noatime mount flags if /export/foo is exported with them
    > but /foo not. Even better would be to change nfsd so it creates it's
    > own non-visible vfsmount for the filesystems it exports..

    What would be the benefit of having private non-visible vfsmounts?
    Sounds like a recipe for confusion?

    It is possible that mountd might start doing bind-mounts to create the
    'pseudo filesystem' thing for NFSv4, but they would be very visible
    (under /var/lib/nfs/v4root or something). So having it's own vfsmount
    might make sense, but I don't get 'non-visible'.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-06 11:29    [W:0.023 / U:15.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site