[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.10-rc2-mm4
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
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -

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 14:08    [W:0.076 / U:7.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site