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, from a
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.
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
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
somebody has a problem, and
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 need
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 proposed syscalls
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
somebody
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 proposed syscalls
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 this
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 is
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, and we don't
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 has to
12 matches
Mail list logo
