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 can
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,
struct
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
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
least try
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
--- 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 amount of
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 is.
