Posted Sep 29, 2005 18:11 UTC (Thu) by tkreagan
Parent article: securityfs
Can someone explain the necessity of this new filesystem? It seems a little weird to me (and this is probably just my ignorance) that we are adding a filesystem with no built-in implementation, instead with overloaded functions from the modules, but we can't add ReiserFS because it does similar things.
I certainly don't agree with letting ReiserFS add overloaded calls to implement its functionality, but why are we letting the security sub-systems do the same thing? What do they need that isn't already there?
to post comments)