From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:46:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200703221835.l2MIZdDw007850@faith.austin.ibm.com> <20070322.120139.74735307.davem@davemloft.net> <1174598630.3085.285.camel@faith.austin.ibm.com> <1174628387.10788.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Joy Latten , David Miller , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, netdev@vger.kernel.org, vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com To: Eric Paris Return-path: Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.9]:56712 "EHLO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753314AbXCWSqw (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:46:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1174628387.10788.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote: > Maybe I'm way out on a limb here but if I am a regular user and I say > rm /tmp/* and I only have permissions to delete some of the files I > expect just those couple to be delete, not the whole operation denied. I don't think this analogy holds up, as rm is a per-file deletion operation, and it is the shell which expands the wildcard for you. A 'flush' has a semantic implication that all entries will be removed, and it should be atomic and either succeed or fail at that granularity. - James -- James Morris