From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add vfsmount to vfs helper functions.
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:00:06 +0000
Message-ID: <20080130130006.GH27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <4799B808.8080002@nttdata.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
To: Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@nttdata.co.jp>
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4799B808.8080002@nttdata.co.jp>
Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:20:56PM +0900, Kentaro Takeda wrote:
> In the LSM ml, we are discussing about
> "how to know requested pathnames within LSM modules".
> 
> Currently, VFS helper functions don't pass "struct vfsmount" parameter.
> Therefore, we cannot calculate requested pathnames within LSM modules
> because LSM hooks can't know "struct vfsmount" parameter that corresponds with
> "struct dentry" passed to VFS helper functions.
> 
> AppArmor is proposing a patch that appends "struct vfsmount" parameters to
> VFS helper functions so that LSM modules (SELinux, AppArmor, TOMOYO) can
> calculate requested pathnames.
> 
> The changes in include/linux/fs.h are shown below.
> What do you think about these changes?

That they are bloody *wrong*.  You have not addressed any of the objections
that had been posted too many times to repeat.  Damn it, you've not even
bothered to deal with the specific obvious stupidity with vfs_rename() -
just reposted the dreck and devil take all feedback.  Wonderful...