Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759080AbYFBK4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:56:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759291AbYFBKz4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:55:56 -0400 Received: from fxip-0047f.externet.hu ([88.209.222.127]:57759 "EHLO pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759033AbYFBKzy (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:55:54 -0400 To: hch@infradead.org CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, hch@infradead.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, eparis@redhat.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, agruen@suse.de, jjohansen@suse.de, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: <20080602104203.GA21898@infradead.org> (message from Christoph Hellwig on Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:42:03 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch 01/15] security: pass path to inode_create References: <20080529134903.615127628@szeredi.hu> <20080529134958.655985182@szeredi.hu> <20080531083052.GH24135@infradead.org> <20080602060144.GA11564@infradead.org> <20080602091341.GA8011@infradead.org> <20080602093630.GA25254@infradead.org> <20080602104203.GA21898@infradead.org> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:55:33 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1521 Lines: 38 > > These patches fix several issues raised at previous submissions: > > > > - passing NULL vfsmounts > > - using nameidata > > - using extra stack for vfsmount argument > > > > So, it seems to me that there's in fact no issues remaining and the > > best excuse you can come up with is that it's a dumb idea. Well, > > that's not a very imressive technical argument IMNSHO. > > Well, pathname based access control is a dumb idea, and we've been > through this N times. You think it's a dumb idea. Several major distros, which ship the code, *despite* being out-of-tree, don't. > You've also been told that vfs_ routines should > remain without vfsmount, Oh, I've been told. But valid technical reason given? No. Such hand waving won't help your cause at all. It's time for you to actually look at the patches and stat technical reasons why they are wrong, or let them be included. Is it so hard to understand that the decision to include apparmor is not in your hands? You can argue against the concept of apparmor itself, but you better argue with Crispin, because I'm quite clueless about that part. When you've convinced him (and Linus (and Ubuntu, and SUSE, and Mandriva)) that apparmor is a stupid idea, then I'll give up. Good luck with that! Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/