From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [patch 01/15] security: pass path to inode_create Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:04:13 +0200 Message-ID: <200806021204.16615.agruen@suse.de> References: <20080529134903.615127628@szeredi.hu> <20080602091341.GA8011@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, eparis@redhat.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, jjohansen@suse.de, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080602091341.GA8011@infradead.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Monday 02 June 2008 11:13:41 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > So again, can you offer an alternative? > > Just give up on this dumb idea completely. The AppArmor guys have really gone a long way in arguing their case, and all discussions so far have ended in you decreeing that pathnames are bad at some point. Thanks a lot for your constructive input on other areas of the code, but could you please come up with technical arguments why pathnames are bad this time? Thanks a lot! Andreas