On Monday 16 April 2007 18:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 06:11:30PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Thursday 12 April 2007 12:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Once again very strong NACK. Every conditional passing of vfsmounts get
my veto. As mentioned last time
On Monday 16 April 2007 18:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
You should provide intent information, yes - which your patch didn't :)
Well, the information implicitly provided is no intent: In do_create() in
ipc/mqueue.c intents would be pretty pointless because the mqueue filesystem
is local. In
On Thursday 12 April 2007 12:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Once again very strong NACK. Every conditional passing of vfsmounts get my
veto. As mentioned last time if you really want this send a patch series
first that passed the vfsmount consistantly.
I don't consider it fair to NACK this
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 06:11:30PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
+static inline int
+nfsd_do_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *child, struct vfsmount *mnt,
+int mode)
+{
+ struct nameidata nd = {
+ .dentry = child,
+ .mnt = mnt,
+ };
On Monday 16 April 2007 18:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
But anyway, creating fake nameidata structures is not really helpful.
If there is a nameidata passed people expect it to be complete, and
if you pass them to an LSM people will e.g. try to look into lookup
intents.
I don't actually agree
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Monday 16 April 2007 18:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
But anyway, creating fake nameidata structures is not really helpful.
If there is a nameidata passed people expect it to be complete, and
if you pass them to an LSM
