From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [AppArmor 38/45] AppArmor: Module and LSM hooks Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:35:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20070604113519.GA6710@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20070514110607.549397248@suse.de> <200705231816.46197.agruen@suse.de> <20070604105526.GE4363@elf.ucw.cz> <200706041325.30817.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Gruenbacher Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:55201 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752704AbXFDLf1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:35:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706041325.30817.agruen@suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon 2007-06-04 13:25:30, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Monday 04 June 2007 12:55, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2007-05-23 18:16:45, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:14, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Why is this configurable? > > > > > > The maximum length of a pathname is an arbitrary limit: we don't want to > > > allocate arbitrary amounts of of kernel memory for pathnames so we > > > introduce this limit and set it to a reasonable value. In the unlikely > > > case that someone uses insanely long pathnames, this limit can be > > > increased. > > > > vfs does not have configurable pathname limit, and I do not see what > > is so special about AA to require this kind of uglyness. > > You very well know that the vfs has a limit of PATH_MAX characters (4096) for > pathnames. This means that at most that many characters can be passed at > once. Sorry then. Why not reuse the PATH_MAX when it exists already? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html