From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935012AbYEBMxZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 08:53:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764070AbYEBMxP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 08:53:15 -0400 Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:47334 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760627AbYEBMxM (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 08:53:12 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 08:52:50 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: Jeff Mahoney , Tim Gardner , jeffschroeder@computer.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, John Johansen References: <200804291601.32945.chris.mason@oracle.com> <481A23AB.1020302@suse.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805020852.51125.chris.mason@oracle.com> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > >>>> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to > >>>> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does > >>>> not have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU > >>>> kernel is not specific enough. > >>> > >>> I've been assuming the apparmor patches change remove_suid even when > >>> they are not enabled in the config. > >> > >> Lets get Kees involved. He developed the patch set for Hardy. I would > >> hope that if CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=n then the source would default to > >> its normal state. > > > >remove_suid() isn't the only change AppArmor makes to the VFS interface. > >It's pretty invasive and requires that dentries are passed with a > >companion vfsmount in most cases. Putting #ifdefs around all that code > >would make the problem worse, not better. > > An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to: > > make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1 This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or if they have it. (This isn't a knock on apparmor, I'd just rather take care of it automagically). -chris