Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934083Ab1ETNgV (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 09:36:21 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:52101 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933714Ab1ETNgT (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 09:36:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=hrzCheF9RtKvrgkVL1bq5vQH27JCFPn7kC2nDWkjeGPJrnXddrm2QnDcvzMDFjnImd EXPKBIPQoSu2fFWygybRNZVu3bKEJIl7IKrdFqUW0OLxBXJHNUbGD/wxLFXAxTfKhzrE EMUtfUHReXtA+x6O1DI9YyWs28r6Skk6wHeHI= Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:36:15 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , Eugene Teo Subject: Re: [RFC] add mount options to sysfs Message-ID: <20110520133615.GB8112@albatros> References: <20110518163142.GA3367@albatros> <20110518163951.GA24143@suse.de> <20110518170545.GA4435@albatros> <20110518191727.GA26741@suse.de> <20110519062622.GA4418@albatros> <20110519171227.GB22019@suse.de> <20110520095920.GA4489@albatros> <20110520133044.GC10225@suse.de> <20110520133451.GA8112@albatros> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110520133451.GA8112@albatros> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1088 Lines: 25 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 17:34 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 06:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > Correct. So, if I understood you, you are OK with adding mount options > > > for debugfs, but not sysfs, right? What is the difference between them > > > in sense of permissions? > > > > debugfs is "there are no rules", so changing the permissions on it > > shouldn't break anything as no userspace tools "should" rely on it. Now > > that really isn't true (see the perf stuff), but overall it is, so I > > don't worry about changing things there as much as sysfs, which has > > hundreds of tools relying on it. > > What would break if the default behaviour is not changed? Err... sorry, s/would break/would it break/ -- Vasiliy Kulikov http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments -- 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/