Re: reiser4 semantics / BeFS Architect(s) Query Resolution

[Will Dyson]

Burnes, James wrote:
> (comments below)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hans Reiser [mailto:reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:55 AM
> > To: Will Dyson
> > Cc: Andrew Morton; hch@xxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; flx@xxxxxxxxxxx; torvalds@xxxxxxxx; reiserfs-
> > list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4
> >
> > I think there are two ways to analyze the code boundary issue.  One is
> > "does it belong in the kernel?"  Another is, "does it belong in the
> > filesystem. and if so should name resolution in a filesystem be split
> > into two parts, one in kernel, and one in user space."  In ten years I
> > might have the knowledge needed to make such a split, but I know for
> > sure that I don't know how to do it today without regretting it
> > tomorrow, and I don't really have confidence that I will ever be able
> > to do it without losing performance.
> >
> > Glad that BeFS finds the new model better.:)
>
> (glad that BeFS supposedly solved it)

Solved what, exactly? I'm already having a hard time understanding what 
Hans is talking about.

> BTW: I get paid during the day to do security engineering work.
> Wouldn't parsing the query in the kernel make the kernel susceptible to
> buffer overflows?  Bad place to have an overflow.



--
Will Dyson
"Back off man, I'm a scientist!" -Dr. Peter Venkman
-
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/