Re: Things that Longhorn seems to be doing right

From: Hans Reiser
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 16:45:00 EST

David S. Miller wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:47:26 +0300
Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you say that names resolve to single objects and never should resolve to sets of objects, we disagree.

While I have no personal opinion either way on the utility of such an
idea, I do think that if we ever do support a "one to many" mapping of
names to inodes we should make you do the security audit of a full
Linux system in the presence of this feature, deal? :-)


I don't know how seriously you desire me to take your comment, so forgive me if I take it too seriously.

You can't upgrade existing APIs to handle sets of inodes without changing them in ways that require source code modification, so one can presume that the app writer used the new APIs as correctly as he performs all his other changes to his code.


Of course, bash would be much more secure if we got rid of globbing (*), yes? Ted, can you write and send a patch in to the bash maintainer for that? ;-)


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