Re: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks

[Neil Brown]

On Tuesday February 6, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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'.

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/