Hello.

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted text
> Just FYI:  A NACK to such an addition doesn't simply go away by
> ignoring it.
Excuse me. What NACK is remaining?

About the below comments?
quoted text
> > NACK to this. Passing function parameters through the task_struct is
> > definitely not an acceptable hack
> 
> Exactly.  Having a vfsmount other than the current processes root or
> current working directory in task_struct doesn't make any sense.

I explained that this approach pushes the parameter on the stack memory
and behaves as if the parameter was passed by function calls.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/19/80

But if this approach is still unacceptable,
please discuss and adopt AppArmor's patches as soon as possible.
Both AppArmor and TOMOYO needs vfsmount parameters, but
I'm sad to see no comments on AppArmor's vfsmount patches.

Regards.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/