| |||||||||||||
The AppArmor debate beginsThe AppArmor debate beginsPosted May 4, 2006 9:13 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785)In reply to: The AppArmor debate begins by MenTaLguY Parent article: The AppArmor debate begins
I disagree: the kernel has to do the translation so it has 'absolute' paths.
That each process can have a different view doesn't imply that there is no absolute path.
(Log in to post comments)
The AppArmor debate begins Posted May 4, 2006 16:58 UTC (Thu) by MenTaLguY (subscriber, #21879) [Link] No, it doesn't. As I recall (it's been a long time since I've messed with filesystem stuff), each namespace can have its own root dentry, and dentries are mostly used used for looking up inodes by their path within a particular namespace.
There is no real "absolute" path to a file because the kernel doesn't need it. Most interesting things happen at the filesystem/inode level.
(One of the reasons that people object to AppArmor is that it'd require pushing a lot of things up into dentry-land, when the whole system was designed around inodes.)
|
|||||||||||||