From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754840AbYEaIYO (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 04:24:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751616AbYEaIX6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 04:23:58 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:41091 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751290AbYEaIX5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 04:23:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 04:23:56 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 5/8] vfs: annotate permission operations Message-ID: <20080531082356.GE24135@infradead.org> References: <20080529113245.450308367@szeredi.hu> <20080529113314.181992948@szeredi.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080529113314.181992948@szeredi.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:32:50PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Miklos Szeredi > > Add more PERM_OP_ flags to permission() calls. This allows > filesystems like NFS and security modules like AppArmor to make > precise decisions about whent permissions need to be checked, and when > they will be checked later together with the actual operation. Where the heck does this PERM_OP crap come from? More MAY_ flags make sense in some cases, but we should introduce them on a per-need basis (e.g. to replace lookup intents in many cases), and without a new PERM_OP_ namespace.