From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to
	vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:46:15 -0400
Message-ID: <1182901575.12836.54.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
References: <20070626231510.883881222@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: jjohansen@suse.de
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070626231510.883881222@suse.de>
Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 16:15 -0700, jjohansen@suse.de wrote:
> To remove conditionally passing of vfsmounts to the LSM, a nameidata
> struct can be instantiated in the nfsd and mqueue filesystems.  This
> however results in useless information being passed down, as not
> all fields in the nameidata struct will be meaingful.  The nameidata
> struct is split creating struct nameidata2 that contains only the
> fields
> that will carry meaningful information.

I don't object to the concept per se, but could you please give it a
more descriptive name please? "struct vfs_intent" would be a lot more
accurate than "nameidata2".

Trond