From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kentaro Takeda Subject: Re: (repost) Confirmation of methods for calculating requested pathname. Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:12:10 +0900 Message-ID: <48BD117A.1080103@nttdata.co.jp> References: <48AA49DE.6000006@nttdata.co.jp> <48BCC1B6.5030901@nttdata.co.jp> <20080902050601.GA4149@x200.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Toshiharu Harada To: Alexey Dobriyan Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080902050601.GA4149@x200.localdomain> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > I don't know what Al Viro will say, but this is incredibly ugly. > Even more ugly than previous patches. Which approach did you mean by the "previous patches"? * introduce security_path_* (new LSM hooks) http://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=120962139014606&w=2 * pass struct path * to vfs helper functions and existing LSM hooks http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/29/217 Regards,