From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: viewprinting: what format should views be stored in? Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:43:59 -0700 Message-ID: <41225FFF.1030509@namesys.com> References: <411FFCB4.2060400@namesys.com> <41201252.1080803@comcast.net> <412015D0.8030806@namesys.com> <41210FF5.7080605@comcast.net> <4121AEAA.8050008@namesys.com> <4121F4D6.8090506@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <4121F4D6.8090506@comcast.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: George Beshers Cc: ReiserFS List George Beshers wrote: > > > Hans Reiser wrote: > >> >>>> >>>> No, because new files might be made visible through the mask >>>> without the new file creator even being aware that there was a mask. >>> >>> >>> I don't think my question was very clear ... >>> >>> For any process, could that process determine if it was running >>> >>> * on a reiser4 file system that is really the root >>> >> the root filesystem? > > Yes, as understood by the OS. > >> >>> * >>> >>> >>> * on a reiser4 file system with a mask, or >>> * on a reiser4 file system with chroot >>> >>> /exclusively/ by making calls to the reiser4 file system? >> >> >> Hmm, sounds like the answer requires carefully traversing the code.;-) > > of course :-) > > But what would we like the answer to be? Ah, so that is the question.... > I will take the position that "no the process can not tell" as > being useful > because it makes running with a mask a better test environment. > Also, I don't see how cluing the process in that a mask is in > place can > improve security whereas knowing that the mask is in place might > encourage someone to try to work around it (beyond the filesystem > semantics). > > > Yes, you are right I think, but you should ask on the mailing list what information about what is the root filesystem is used for by the OS