> Nobody wants to send vfsmounts to the filesystem.  But vfs_...() are
quoted text
> still part of the "upper layer", not the filesystem, so I'm not
> convinced yet.  For example:
> 
> -extern int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *, struct dentry *, int);
> +extern int vfs_mkdir(const struct path *, struct dentry *, int);
> 
> There's one caller of vfs_mkdir that can't do this: cgroup_clone().
> But that can call cgroup_mkdir() instead.
> 
> And having the vfsmount available within vfs_...() functions means,
> that the mnt_want_write() check can be moved inside, which means that
> callers get simpler and less likely to be buggy.  Those are all
> advantages IMO, regardless of any security module issues.

Or we can introduce another set of exported functions (path_mkdir(),
...), and leave vfs_...() alone.  And then the only question is if
LSM's can live with ordering change.

Miklos
--
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/