[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: extended file permissions based on LSM
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:21:14PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 06:16:04AM +0200, Gabor Kerenyi wrote:
> >
> > In this case we could have some very interesting (useful
> > or not who knows) features. For example if there are two
> > hardlinks for an inode in two different directories, the user
> > could get different rights for the file depending on the
> > path he reaches it.
> I think you can already do this with the existing LSM interface, you can
> always get the dentry for a given inode, right?

You get ALL dentries for the given inode. But I don't know,
whether such code traversion inode->i_dentry is valid in all situations.

Passing a dentry instead of inode is the easier variant, because
an dentry maps to exactly one inode, if it is a positive one[1]

The mapping from inode to dentries is 1:n and the thing the
poster wants is not possible with that, because the way the user
took to reach this inode is one of the n possibilities and we
don't know which one.

So this is a correctly pointed out design weakness: The way the
user took to reach the inode cannot be taken into account.


Ingo Oeser

[1] But we should never see permission checks for negative
dentries, since you cannot access what's not there ;-)
Science is what we can tell a computer. Art is everything else. --- D.E.Knuth
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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.077 / U:1.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site