[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [AppArmor 31/41] Fix __d_path() for lazy unmounts and make it unambiguous; exclude unreachable mount points from /proc/mounts
> For /proc/mounts, one could argue that the admin might want to see everything, 
> but then that's not actually true even today because /proc/mounts doesn't
> show lazyily unmounted stuff or mounts from other namespaces, so that
> everything is quite relative.

The current state is not good either

> The getcwd() case is even stronger as the "see everything" argument makes even
> less sense there. I really can't see why the kernel should return processes
> fake pathnames. The process is explicitly asking for the current pathname to
> the working directory, it doesn't want to know what the pathname was at some
> previous point in time.

Can you prove no existing application on the planet relies on the
existing behaviour ? Actually more limited but sane as a test would be
"Can you prove that the glibc behaviour visible to applications does not

> Actually, no. We could live fine with leaving getcwd() and /proc/mounts as
> ambiguous / weird / broken as they are right now. All it would take would be
> to reambiguate the result of the unambiguous __d_path(), which is really
> easy. Everything that cares about real pathnames would use the unambiguous
> version while the legacy interfaces would use the ambiguous version. But that
> really wouldn't make sense.

I disagree - firstly because of not breaking stuff, and secondly because
it separates two discussions - merging AppArmor being one of them , and
the correct behaviour for getcwd & /proc/mounts being the other.

> > Ok, providing the "real" root sees them all it isn't so bad, but to
> > assume you can filter based upon what the task can see is dodgy as an
> > assumption.
> Why?

Because the viewing apparatus on the other side of the monitor is not
operating in current directories/contexts.

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: 2007-04-17 19:23    [W:0.212 / U:6.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site