Re: 2.6.10-rc2-mm4

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 11:29:03AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> My concerns are that the check has to be duplicated in any module,
> and that thus far we've tried to keep out fs -> module communication,
> letting vfs do it.  This could at least be fs -> vfs communication,
> and then either vfs or security framework could check flags and never
> call into module on fs private objects.

(1) an inode beeing private could have much more uses even outside LSM
(2) it's an awfull lot of code where having a flag is really little code
(3) there 's lots of room in the inode flags

I can't find anything that speaks for the messy current implementation

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/