On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:23:53AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > In the current code, both vfsmounts are always identical, and so one of > the two should go, agreed. > > The thought behind passing both vfsmounts was that they could differ but > point to the same super_block, in which case renames would still be > possible at least from a filesystem point of view. The essential > restriction here is that both files must be on the same device; the vfs > restriction of not allowing cross-mount renames is arbitrary.
It's called "access control". Pathname-based one, BTW. And yes, it's 100% deliberate. > Cross-mount renames are not allowed currently, and granted, they may not > be very useful, either. <raised brows> Excuse me, but IIRC LSM was supposed to _add_ restrictions, not to remove existing security checks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
