Re: [patch 00/13] devtmpfs patches

[Kay Sievers]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 22:41, David P. Quigley <dpquigl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This however does highlight a problem with the fact that device node
> labeling isn't being done properly. It should be possible to create this
> fs with a different name such that it doesn't appear as a tmpfs file
> system to SELinux. If it appears as a devtmpfs file system then we can
> specify the root label and labels on the other devices properly in
> policy.

That could be done, if it solves this problem. Damn, now we have the
naming problem back again. :)

By doing its own fstype, we could also make the auto-mount optional,
because you could always reach the filesystem anytime later.

A different fstype has the slight inconvenience, that existing
userspace needs to be taught to handle it explicitly, while a tmfps is
already handled automatically because we use tmpfs already today. But
that may not be too important.

Thanks a lot for your tests and analysis,
Kay
--
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/