Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/11] security: AppArmor - Add flags to d_path

[Tony Jones <tonyj@suse.de>]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > You are correct on calling BS in that I was wrong to refer to it as the
> > "system root".  When a task chroots relative to it's current namespace, we
> > are interested in the path back to the root of that namespace, rather than
> > to the chroot.  I believe the patch as stands achieves this, albeit with
> > some changing of comments.
> 
> it actually doesn't; you assume there is such a path which is not a
> given. For example if your mount got lazy umounted (like hal probably
> does) then it's a floating mount not one tied to any tree going to the
> root of any namespace.

So, running with your "lazy unmounted" example for a bit.

The patch I proposed changes how d_path behaves when the task has chrooted 
relative to it's namespace.   So in your scenario what would calling d_path
on a dentry report (for !chrooted and chrooted) without this patch ?

I can't tell if you are claiming there is a fundamental problem calling d_path
*period* in this scenario. If so, I'd appreciate a little more concrete detail 
in the way of an actual example, this is a bit hand-wavy.

Or that you are just saying another version of "pathames are crap" which I'm 
not sure if appropos to this patch itself.

If it's the former, I'll happily go off and write some code to test your
assertion and it's ramifications if I can better understand what the actual
assertion is :-)

Thanks

Tony