[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:0.098 / U:16.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site