Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday 21 February 2008, David Howells wrote: > David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Have you got before/after benchmark results? > > > > See attached. > > Attached here are results using BTRFS (patched so that it'll work at all) > rather than Ext3 on the client on the partition back

Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

2007-06-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:23:03AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > > > But, this is a completely different discussion than if AA is > > solving problems in the wild for its intended audience, or if the code > > is somehow flawed and

Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

2007-06-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 09:48:12AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > The validity or otherwise of pathname access control is not being > > > discussed here. > > > > > > The point is that the pa

Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

2007-06-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:06:40PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > The incomplete mediation flows from the design, since the pathname-based > > > mediation doesn't generalize to cover all objects unlike label- or > >

Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

2007-06-21 Thread Chris Mason
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:59:54PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:54 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > On 2007-06-21T15:42:28, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > A veto is not a technical argument. All technical arguments (except for > > > > "path name