Re: [patch] kernel sysfs events layer

[Herbert Poetzl]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:38:39PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 14:34 -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> 
> > It's a can of worms, is what it is.  And I'm not sure what a good fix
> > would be.  Would it just be enough to send a generic "mount-table changed"
> > event, and let userspace figure out the rest?
> 
> "Can of worms" is a tough description for something that there is no
> practical security issue for, just a lot of hand waving.  No one even
> uses name spaces.

ah, sorry, that is wrong, we (linux-vserver)
_do_ use namespaces extensively, and probably 
other 'jail' solutions will use it too ...

best,
Herbert

> Anyhow, I already said that we could send out a generic kobject instead
> of the one tied to the specific device.
> 
> > Or really, why is the kernel broadcasting a mount, which originated in
> > userland.  Couldn't mount (or a mount wrapper) do that?  It's already
> > running in the right namespace...
> 
> In practice stuff like that never works.  Besides, it is not mount(1)
> that we want to wrap but the mount(2) system call.  And, uh, I'd rather
> stab myself than try to get that patch by Uli.
> 
> 	Robert Love
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/