Hello.

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
quoted text
> when will you post this filesystem for inclusion into kernel.org kernel?
> (and please really consider posting the patch together with that patch)
> (also, if you can give a pointer to the source code of this filesystem
> you might even get early code review)

I have proposed this filesystem at http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/11/1/48 .

In short, the filesystem I'm developing is a trivial device filesystem
that provides protection mechanism against tampering.

Reasons I don't use devfs/udev or fuse or LSM for /dev are:

  The devfs/udev don't provide protection mechanism against tampering.
  I don't know implementation that can enforce filename and it's attributes.
  Label based access control like SELinux doesn't distinguish
  /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2, do they?
  If a process who is permitted to unlink and create /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 is cracked,
  who can ensure that /dev/sda1 is block-8-1 and /dev/sda2 is block-8-2?
  A situation /dev/sda1 is block-8-2 and /dev/sda2 is block-8-1 can happen.

  /dev has to be valid throughout the lifetime of system
  (i.e. from /sbin/init till power failure).
  Filesystems using fuse will freeze when a system starts /usr/bin/killall at shutdown script,
  where it is too early to stop working of /dev partition.

  LSM is used by SELinux, thus there is unlikely chance to call my module
  to validate a device file's filename and it's attributes.

The latest snapshot (which is not following codingstyle) is at
http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/trunk/1.5.x/ccs-patch/include...
http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/trunk/1.5.x/ccs-patch/fs/syao...

If there is a chance for inclusion into kernel.org kernel, I'm willing to fix codingstyle and submit immediately.

Thank you.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html