Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> > parameter? What I'm thinking of is this:
> ...
> Why the *hell* would mkdir() be so magical as to need something like that?
If you look again, you'll notice that I said "fu
On Friday 17 August 2007 01:34, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:57:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I personally consider this an affront to everythign that is decent.
> >
> > Why the *hell* would mkdir() be so magical as to need something like that?
> >
> > Make it something san
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:57:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I personally consider this an affront to everythign that is decent.
>
> Why the *hell* would mkdir() be so magical as to need something like that?
>
> Make it something sane, like a "struct nameidata" instead, and make it at
> lea
On Aug 16, 2007, at 18:57:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, David Howells wrote:
Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a
security parameter? What I'm thinking of is this:
int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
struct security *
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, David Howells wrote:
>
> Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> parameter? What I'm thinking of is this:
>
> int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> struct security *security)
I per
On Wednesday 15 August 2007 13:40, David Howells wrote:
>
> Hi Linus, Al,
>
> Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> parameter? What I'm thinking of is this:
>
> int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> st
On Wednesday 15 August 2007 18:23, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > Hi Linus, Al,
> >
> > Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> > parameter?
>
> Could you describe how this compares to the proposal that the
> AppArmor developers suggested recently? I expect that we
Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could you describe how this compares to the proposal that the
> AppArmor developers suggested recently? I expect that we can
> reduce the amount of discussion required, and maybe avoid some
> confusion if you could do that.
I don't know what that i
--- David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Linus, Al,
>
> Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> parameter?
Could you describe how this compares to the proposal that the
AppArmor developers suggested recently? I expect that we can
reduce the amoun
Hi Linus, Al,
Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
parameter? What I'm thinking of is this:
int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
struct security *security)
Where the security context is the state of
10 matches
Mail list logo
