On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:46:07AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Al Viro wrote:
Ewww - caps, \n... BTW, \0 is pointless here - simple_read_from_buffer()
will
not access it with these arguments)...
...
Please, check the length; sloppy input grammar is
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:04:35AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I noticed that there is a lot of duplication in pseudo
file systems, so I started looking into how to consolidate
them. I ended up with a largish rework of the structure
of libfs and moving almost all of debugfs in there as well.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:34:07PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a .show_options super operation to usbfs.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks good to me. Do you want to take this through your tree, as it is
dependant on other
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
patch 97855b49b6bac0bd25f16b017883634d13591d00 in mainline.
It's currently possible to send posix_locks_deadlock() into an infinite
loop (under the BKL).
For
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 01:14:05PM -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
This patch adds only the basic 9p functionality, we use the sysfs
interface extensively for configuring the 9p in-kernel servers (patch
7 in the series). The v9fs filesyste will probably add some more
subdirectories for
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:05:27AM -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
Sysfs support for 9P servers.
Every server type is represented as a directory in /sys/fs/9p/srv. Initially
there is a single file in the directory -- 'clone'. Reading from the clone
file creates a new instance of the file server
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 10:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:59:02 -0400 Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:19:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
There are real things to worry about - sysfs, sysfs, sysfs, ... and all
the other crap which
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:37:42PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 10:59:17AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Come on now, I'm _very_ tired of this kind of discussion. Please go
read the documentation on how to _use_ sysfs from userspace in such a
way that you can properly access
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:27:48PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 27, 2007, at 17:34:45, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:37:42PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
That fact that sysfs is all laid out in a directory, but for which some
directories/symlinks are OK to use, and some
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 05:28:57PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 07:19:27PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
Would you accept a patch which causes the deprecated sysfs
files/directories to disappear, even if CONFIG_SYS_DEPRECATED is
defined, via a boot-time parameter?
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 07:19:27PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:34:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Ok, how then should I advertise this better? What can we do better to
help userspace programmers out in this regard?
Would you accept a patch which causes the deprecated
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 01:11:13PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
USB
Subject : 2.6.23-rc1: USB hard disk broken
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/25/62
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Tino Keitel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By : Oliver
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:47:44AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Unclassified
Subject : kobject link failure
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/19/495
Last known good : ?
This is caused by a patch that happened after 2.6.22 was released, so it
is a regression.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:34:55PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
SYSFS
Subject : sysfs root link count broken in 2.6.22-git5
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/15/62
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : ?
Handled-By
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:09:06AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
Usually you don't do that by doing a 'mv' otherwise you are almost
guaranteed stale and mixed up content for some period of time, not to
mention the issues surrounding paths that might
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:09:18AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Saturday 09 June 2007 02:17, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 12:03:57AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
AppArmor is meant to be relatively easy to understand, manage
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
And before you scream races, take a look. It does not actually add
them:
Hey, I never screamed that at all, in fact, I completly agree with you
:)
I agree that the in-kernel implementation could use different
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:28:35PM -0400, Karl MacMillan wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:43:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
Yup, I see that once you accept the notion that it is OK for a
file to be misslabeled for a bit
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:42:08PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
Or just create the files with restrictive labels by default. That way
you fail closed.
From my limited knowledge of SELinux, this is the default today so this
would happen by default
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:30:44PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
* Renamed Directory trees: The above problem is compounded with
directory trees. Changing the name at the top of a large, bushy
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:18:10PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:49:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
We have built a label-based AA prototype. It fails because there is no
reasonable way to address the tree renaming problem.
How does inotify not work here? You
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:01:25PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:30:44PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Only case where attacker _can't_ be keeping
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:21:57PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
Oh great, then things like source code control systems would have no
problems with new files being created under them, or renaming whole
trees.
It depends -- I think we may be talking
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 12:03:57AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
AppArmor is meant to be relatively easy to understand, manage, and customize,
and introducing a labels layer wouldn't help these goals.
Woah, that describes the userspace side of AA just fine, it means
nothing when it comes
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:10:09AM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote:
The remaining question is how to deal with kernel-only code that uses
be64. Convert that to __be64 as well? Or introduce be64 in
include/linix/types.h instead?
I say leave it alone for now, it's not that common :)
thanks,
greg
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:54:52AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 01-05-07 20:26:27, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 07:55:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
Hello,
attached patch implements renaming for debugfs. I was asked for this
feature by WLAN guys and I guess it makes
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 07:55:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
Hello,
attached patch implements renaming for debugfs. I was asked for this
feature by WLAN guys and I guess it makes sence (they have some debug info
in the directory identified by interface name and that can change...).
Could
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:39:19PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The owner doesn't need sysadmin capabilities to call umount().
Similar behavior as umount(8) on mounts having user=UID option in
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:37:19PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Modify the device class code so that normal manipulations work
in the presence of shadow directories. Some of the shadow directory
support still needs to be implemented in the implementation of the
class but these
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:28:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:37:19PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Modify the device class code so that normal manipulations work
in the presence of shadow directories. Some
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 05:44:03PM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
+ gfs2_assert(gl-gl_sbd, atomic_read(gl-gl_count) 0,);
what is gfs2_assert() about anyway? please just use BUG_ON directly
everywhere
When a machine
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:29:55PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Fair enough, where in /sys should such things go? /proc/fs is a
well-known place, but there is no /sys/fs :-)
Actually, configfs should probably be mounted in /sys/kernel/config/
Just create that mount point and away you go
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 10:43:05AM -0500, Brian King wrote:
Sonny Rao wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:11:03PM +0100, Brian King wrote:
I think this is a libsysfs/iprutils issue due to a sysfs change in
recent kernels. Install sysfsutils 1.3.0, then grab the latest iprutils
package
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:07:17AM -0500, Michael C Thompson wrote:
Ultimately, the part where we differ most, is the processing of
information in
fs/dcache.c to give dynamic updates in response to file system activity
(such
as attaching audit information to an auditable file
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:48:37PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2005 15:04, Greg KH wrote:
You are adding auditfs, a new userspace access, right?
Not sure what you mean. This is using the same netlink interface that all the
rest of the audit system is using for command
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 18:50, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 03:23:10PM -0500, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
This is similar to Inotify in that the audit subsystem watches for file
system activity and collects
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:16:35PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 11:10 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Yes, and then I change namespaces to put /etc/shadow at
/foo/baz/etc/shadow and then access it that way? Will the current
audit system fail to catch that access?
The watch
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:49:09PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2005 14:15, Greg KH wrote:
I fail to see any refactoring here, why not make your patch rely on
theirs?
At the time this code was developed, inotify was not in the kernel. We would
be patching against another
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 03:23:10PM -0500, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
This is similar to Inotify in that the audit subsystem watches for file
system activity and collects information about inodes its interested
in, but this is where the similarities stop. Despite the fact that the
Inotify
39 matches
Mail list logo
