Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system callfiltering

[Al Viro]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:02:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> And yes, it is absolutely acceptable. The only questions in my mind are
> 
>  - why haven't we done this long ago?
> 
>  - do we have the flag space?
> 
>  - should we do a O_NOMNT_PATH flag to do the same for mount-points?
> 
>   Some people worry about being confused by bind mounts etc.
> 
>  - do we think ".." is worthy of a flag too?
> 
>    or is that a "user space can damn well check that itself, even if
> it would be absolutely trivial to check in the kernel too"?
> 
> Whatever. I think the NOFOLLOW_PATH one is pretty much a no-brainer.
> It's not like symlink worries are unusual.

It's not *quite* a no-brainer.  Guys, please hold that one off for a while;
we have more massage to do in the area and I *really* want to get atomic
open work finished (== intents gone, revalidation vs mountpoints sanitized,
etc.) before anything else is done to fs/namie.c.  OK?

And as for .. - userland can bloody well check that on its own if it cares.
Let's keep it simple, please - we already have things far too complicated
in there for my taste.
--
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/