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

[Christoph Hellwig]

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..

> But there is no way to tell different hardlinks to the same inode in the same 
> directory from each other (both the file and directory inode are the same), 
> and depending on the export options, we may or may not be able to distinguish 
> different hardlinks across directories.

This doesn't matter.  hardlinks are per definition on the same vfsmount.

> If the nohide or crossmnt export options are used, we might run into similar 
> aliasing issues with mounts (I'm not sure about this).

no, we won't.

-
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/