Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:00:41PM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
I don't think that I understand what you're saying here. The openg()
call does not perform file open (not that that is necessarily even a
first-class FS operation), it simply does the lookup.
When we were naming t
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
While it could do that, I'd be interested to see how you'd construct
the handle such that it's immune to a malicious user tampering with it,
or saving it across a reboot, or constructing one from scratch.
I
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:00:41PM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> I don't think that I understand what you're saying here. The openg()
> call does not perform file open (not that that is necessarily even a
> first-class FS operation), it simply does the lookup.
>
> When we were naming these calls, fro
Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
On 12/6/06, Rob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
>
> I also get the feeling that interfaces that already do this
> open-by-handle stuff haven't been explored either.
>
> Does anyone here know about the XFS libhandle API? This has been
> around for year
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > While it could do that, I'd be interested to see how you'd construct
> > the handle such that it's immune to a malicious user tampering with it,
> > or saving it across a reboot, or constructing one from scratch.
>
> If the server
On 12/6/06, Rob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:47:16PM +0100, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
>> On 12/5/06, Rob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree that it is not feasible to add new system calls every time
>>> somebody has a problem
On Dec 06, 2006 15:17 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Considering that filesystems like GFS and OCFS allow clients DIRECT
> > ACCESS to the block device itself (which no amount of authentication
> > will fix, unless it is in the di
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Considering that filesystems like GFS and OCFS allow clients DIRECT
> ACCESS to the block device itself (which no amount of authentication
> will fix, unless it is in the disks themselves), the risk of passing a
> file handle around
On Dec 06, 2006 13:50 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 07:40:05AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > This is an implementation detail - it is possible that file handle,
> > being opaque, could encode a UID/GID of the user that constructed
> > the handle and then allow any proces
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:50:24PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 07:40:05AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > Permission checks are done on the path_to_handle(), so in reality
> > only root or CAP_SYS_ADMIN users can currently use the
> > open_by_handle interface because of t
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:50:49PM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> >>David Chinner wrote:
> >>>Does anyone here know about the XFS libhandle API? This has been around
> >>>for
> >>>years and it does _exactly_ what these p
David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:47:16PM +0100, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
On 12/5/06, Rob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I agree that it is not feasible to add new system calls every time
somebod
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:20:23AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> >>David Chinner wrote:
> >>>Does anyone here know about the XFS libhandle API? This has been
> >>>around for years and it does _exactly_ what these propos
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 07:40:05AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> Permission checks are done on the path_to_handle(), so in reality
> only root or CAP_SYS_ADMIN users can currently use the
> open_by_handle interface because of this lack of checking. Given
> that our current users of this interface n
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:47:16PM +0100, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
> >>On 12/5/06, Rob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>I agree that it is not feasible to add new system calls every time
> >>>someb
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
Does anyone here know about the XFS libhandle API? This has been
around for years and it does _exactly_ what these proposed syscalls
are supposed to do (and more).
Thanks for pointing these out
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:53:39AM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >Does anyone here know about the XFS libhandle API? This has been
> >around for years and it does _exactly_ what these proposed syscalls
> >are supposed to do (and more).
>
> Thanks for pointing these out Dave. Thes
17 matches
Mail list logo
