From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268175AbUIAWVc (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:21:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267708AbUIAWUH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:20:07 -0400 Received: from mail.zelnet.ru ([80.92.97.13]:20437 "HELO zelnet.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S267968AbUIAWRX (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:17:23 -0400 Message-Id: <200001310023.e0V0N1dP022186@altair.deep.net> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: viro@parcelfarce.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.3; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 21.3.1 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:23:01 +0100 From: Samium Gromoff Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexander Viro wrote: > Arguments about O_NOFOLLOW on the intermediate stages are bullshit, IMNSHO - > if they want to make some parts of tree inaccessible, they should simply > mkdir /tmp/FOAD; chmod 0 /tmp/FOAD; mount --bind /tmp/FOAD > in the namespace their daemon is running in. And forget all that crap > about filtering pathnames and blocking symlinks on intermediate stages > the latter is obviously worthless without the former since one can simply > substitute the symlink body in the pathname). This made me wonder -- why not have a dedicated /dev/noaccess special node for exactly such patterns of usage? Yes that`ll made it Linux-specific and such... but hey -- if it saves someone for for literally (?) no cost why not? regards, Samium Gromoff